Dismissed

M/s. Soma Srinivasa Reddy Engineers and Contractors, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC10 Feb 2012WP/31668/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of multiple writ petitions seeking directions to include 1% Labour Cess in government work estimates. The court held the issues were identical to a previous decision and dismissed petitions, directing respondents to include cess in estimates for specific works without deduction if included.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to include 1% cess in estimates for works beyond twelve months involving 10+ workers; no deduction allowed unless included.

M/s. Soma Srinivasa Reddy Engineers and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶2

W.P.No. W.P.No. 28730,28769, 28771, 28823, 27845,

¶3

28219,29752,30369,31668, 31684, 33187, 33553,33588, and 33692 of 2010, 138, 883,5842, 5936, 5508, 5551,6669, 7870, 7871, 8082, 21220, 33016, 33409 of 2011

¶4

¶5

Dated 10^th February, 2012.

Between:

..Petitioners

and

1. The Govt. Of A.P. rep.by its Principal Secretary, Finance & Planning Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others

¶10

..Respondents in all WPs

¶11

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶12

W.P.No. 28730,28769, 28771, 28823, 27845, 28219,29752,30369,31668, 31684, 33187, 33553,33588, and 33692 of 2010, 138, 883,5842, 5936, 5937,34624 5508, 5551,6669, 7870, 7871, 8082, 21220, 33016, 33409 of 2011

¶13

@@@@@@@@@@@

¶14

COMMON ORDER:

¶15

As the issue involved in this batch of Writ Petitions is one and the same,

¶16

they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

¶17

The petitioners pray that a direction be issued to the respondents to include 1% towards Labour Cess in all the works entrusted to them and for all the payments made after 26-06-2007 as per Clause (i) of U.O.No.4763/PFS/F8/98-4, Finance (Works & Projects) Department, dated 2802-2008.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the subject matter of batch of these Writ Petitions is squarely covered by a common order passed by this Court in W.P.No.11269 of 2009 and batch, dated 22-10-2009.

¶19

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation, however, submits that since large number of cases are already pending in this Court and at most, only interim order may be passed and cases may not be disposed of in terms of W.P.No.11269 of 2009 and batch. He also referred to the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4587 of 2008 and Batch, dated 15.07.2008.

¶20

However, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the controversy involved in the aforementioned judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4587 of 2008 and batch, dated 15.-7.2008 is entirely different to the controversy involved in the batch of cases on hand. The learned Counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that indeed to-day itself my learned Brother, Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohanrao allowed a large number of batch of cases being Writ Petition No. 12911 of 2009 and batch involving the one and same controversy in the batch on hand, and. therefore the present batch of Writ Petitions also be allowed in terms thereof.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel at length. Perused the case files.

¶22

The question which came up for consideration in W.P.No.11269 of 2009 and batch, Writ Petition No. 12911 and 2009 and batch the present writ petition is absolutely one and the same. Hence, no purpose would be served by passing interim order now and thereafter disposing of the cases in terms of decision rendered in W.P.No.11269 of 2009 and batch.

¶23

In view of the above, these writ petitions are disposed of in the same

¶24

terms as in W.P.No.11269 of 2009 and batch with the following directions:

¶25

(1) the respondents shall include 1% cess in the estimates for the works which they propose to undertake, if the work continues for or beyond twelve months and involves engagement of 10 workers or more; and

¶26

(2) the respondents shall not deduct any amount towards cess, unless the corresponding amount is included in the estimates.

¶27

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

As a sequel to the disposal of the writ petitions, WPMPs filed therein by the petitioners for interim relief etc. shall stand closed as infructuous.

¶29

___________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.

¶30

Dated 10^th February, 2012 Msnro

M/s. Soma Srinivasa Reddy Engineers and Contractors, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Soma Srinivasa Reddy Engineers and Contractors, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Sita Rama Krishna Sarma, Vs The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban

Sri. Singi Reddy Swamy Reddy Vs The Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India

Guttikonda Ramanaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Siri Engineering Works, Vs The Government of A.P.

B. Narayana W.G.Dist. and Ano Vs the Govt. of A.P. Fand P Dept. Hyd and 42 Othrs

Mohd Asif S/o Mohd. Haneef Vs The Regional Passport Officer