Dismissed

The Management of the South Central v. Assistant Commissioner of Labour

Telangana HC30 Apr 2013CRP/2056/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 226 challenging an order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour allowing the petitioner to adduce evidence on the maintainability of reinstatement proceedings. The Court held no interference warranted.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Authority to frame an issue regarding maintainability and record findings on appreciation of evidence; no costs.

The Management of the South Central Vs Assistant… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.2056, 2057, 2059, 2060, 2100 & 2103 OF 2013

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

South Central Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Society Limited is the petitioner in all these Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶4

Some of the employees of the petitioner society who are arrayed as respondent No.2 in each of the revision petition, initiated proceedings before the Authority under Section 48 of the A.P. Shops & Establishments Act, 1988-Cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle-II, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Authority under S.E. Act’) for their reinstatement into employment with back-wages and consequential benefits. The said cases are numbered as S.E. Case Nos.2 to 7 of 2012 and are pending on the file of the Authority under S.E. Act.

¶5

The revision petitioner i.e., the respondent in the above said S.E. Case Nos.2 to 7 of 2012 raised a specific objection as to the very maintainability of the said cases contending that the applicants therein are not employees so as to invoke the remedy under the Act and accordingly sought to dismiss the applications. However, the Authority under S.E. Act opined that the said objection cannot be decided at that stage since it requires consideration on appreciation of evidence that may be adduced by both the parties. Accordingly, it was held that the objection raised by petitioner society cannot be considered at that stage and liberty was given to the revision petitioner to adduce evidence in the main application to prove the objection as to the maintainability. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petitions are filed.

¶6

Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and having perused the material available on record, I do not find any

¶7

justifiable reason to hold that the Authority under S.E. Act committed any error in holding that the objection raised by the revision petitioner as to the maintainability of the petitions would be considered at a later stage on appreciation of the evidence that may be adduced. As rightly held by the Authority, the petitioner’s objection cannot be decided at this stage even before the evidence is adduced by the parties.

¶8

Hence the interference by this Court is not warranted on any ground whatsoever.

¶9

Accordingly, all the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of with a direction to the 1^st respondent herein (Authority under S.E. Act) to frame a specific issue with regard to the maintainability of S.E. Case Nos.2 to 7 of 2012 and record a finding on the same on appreciation of the evidence that may be adduced by both the parties while deciding the main cases. No costs.

¶10

__________________ G. Rohini,J

¶11

Date: 30.04.2013 Note:- CC in one week (B/O) KLP

The Management of the South Central v. Assistant Commissioner of Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of the South Central v. Assistant Commissioner of Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Shah Alam Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

N.Balakrishna, Vs Mukundlal Khiraiya

Chintapalli Venu Gopal Vs Sri Ram Chits Pvt. Limited

The Management of the Scr Employes Cooperative Credit Societ Vs Assist Commissioner of Labour

Ghantasal Venkanna Babu alias Venkata Syamala Rao, Vs Jayamangala Savithri

The Management of the South Central Vs Authority Appointed under Sec. 48 of the A.P. Shops and