Disposed

The A.P. Power General Employees Union, v. Mr. K.Vijayanand

Telangana HC4 Mar 2013CC/1856/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt case alleged willful disobedience of a previous order directing a power company to consider membership fee deductions from employee salaries. The respondent explained the delay and claimed disciplinary action was initiated against responsible officials. The court closed the contempt case without adjudicating the contempt, leaving liberty to challenge the substantive refusal.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; liberty to question the order refusing the fee deduction request.

The A.P. Power General Employees Union, Vs Mr… — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

CONTEMPT CASE No.1856 of 2012

¶3

Date: 04.03.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

The A.P. Power General Employees Union, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District, reptd by its President-M.A.Vazeer.

¶6

..... Petitioner

¶7

And:

¶8

Mr K.Vijayanand, Chairman and Managing Director, The A.P. Genco, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad,

¶9

.....Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Peeta Raman Counsel for the Respondent: Sri C.Raghu

¶11

Standing Counsel for AP Genco

¶12

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶13

This Contempt Case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of order, dated 23.11.2011, in Writ Petition No.30856 of 2011 by the respondent.

¶14

The petitioner herein filed Writ Petition No.30856 of 2011 with the grievance that the respondent has not been considering its representation, dated 23.04.2010, for giving directions to the power generating stations, under his control, to deduct membership subscription from each of the employees/workers, who are members of the petitioner-trade union, from their salaries/wages. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court by

¶15

order, dated 23.11.2011, with the direction to the respondent to dispose of representation, dated 23.04.2010, stated to have been given by the petitioner and communicate the decision to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Alleging that this order has not been complied with, the writ petitioner filed this Contempt Case. Though time was granted to the respondent to file counter-affidavit twice, the same was not filed. Therefore, the Contempt Case was admitted on 28.01.2013 and personal presence of the respondent was ordered. Accordingly, the respondent is personally present in the Court at the hearing today.

¶16

The respondent has filed a counter-affidavit, wherein he has inter alia explained the reasons for the delay in complying with the aforesaid order of this Court. He has further stated that a speaking order was passed on 24.12.2012 on the aforesaid representation of the petitioner and the same was communicated to the petitioner-trade union duly intimating that the Directors of AP GENCO have decided not to consider the petitioner’s request for recovery of annual membership fee of Rs.150/- from the salaries of the employees. While attributing the delay in complying with the direction of this Court to the fact that the AP GENCO had to consider the representations of as many as 49 unions/associations, for which collection of details consumed a lot of time, the respondent has stated in the counter-affidavit that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the persons responsible for the inordinate delay in complying with the aforesaid order of this Court.

¶17

Even though the time stipulated in order, dated

¶18

23.11.2011, in Writ Petition No.30856 of 2011, was far too exceeded and the respondent has not sought for extension of time for compliance of the said order, considering the explanation offered by him and initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the persons responsible, it is appropriate to close the Contempt Case, while leaving liberty with the petitioner to question the order, dated 24.12.2012, passed by the AP GENCO if it feels aggrieved thereby.

¶19

The Contempt Case is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Contempt Case, C.C.M.P.No.199 of 2013 filed by the respondent shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶20

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA

¶21

REDDY 04^th March, 2013 DR

The A.P. Power General Employees Union, v. Mr. K.Vijayanand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The A.P. Power General Employees Union, v. Mr. K.Vijayanand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Rahaman, Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

Guguloth Chinna Venkulu Vs The Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition)

M/s. Shoba Oil Mill and Modern Rice Mill Vs The District Collector (Civil Supplies)

Kondlapudi Sankar Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Addaguduru Lalitha, Vs The Sub-Collector

Uduthala , Malyala Veeramma Vs The Commissioner