Allowed

Road Transport Corporation of v. D. Anandam, S/o Hanmanthu

Telangana HC9 Dec 2014WA/1610/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court allowed a writ appeal against a Single Judge's order setting aside a Corporation's letter permitting salary deductions for trade union contributions. The Court remanded the matter for fresh disposal with parties impleaded, directing future deductions only for the remaining recognised union term.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowed; Single Judge order set aside; matter remanded for fresh disposal with impleaded parties.

Road Transport Corporation of Vs D… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶4

Writ Appeal No.1610 of 2014

¶5

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

¶6

This writ appeal is filed against the order, dated 16.10.2014. The writ petition was filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein challenging the letter, dated 06.09.2014, whereunder the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) agreed to effect deduction of the amounts towards contribution from salaries of the respective employees and to remit the same to the accounts of the recognised Unions. The grievance of the writ petitioners 1 to 4 is that, indiscriminate deductions, that too, for the periods beyond the recognised term, are being affected and in many cases coercive steps are being taken. On its part, the Corporation stated that it has nothing to do with the deductions, and they are permitted only on the basis of mutual consent. The learned Single Judge has set aside the letter, dated 06.09.2014. Hence, this writ appeal.

¶7

Heard Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel for respondents 1 to 4, and Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6.

¶8

The trade Unions mostly depend upon the contributions to be made by their members for pooling resources. Obviously, finding it difficult to collect the contributions from each employee every month, the recognised Unions have approached the Corporation to deduct the contribution from the salaries and to remit to their accounts. That was acceded to. The grievance of the writ petitioners was that, under letter, dated 06.09.2014, the deductions are being made far

¶9

exceeding what is otherwise due, and in many cases, coercive steps are being taken. The 4^th respondent filed his pay slips, which disclose that on three occasions sums of Rs.180/-, Rs.360/- and Rs.360/- were deducted. His grievance was that recognised term of the Union itself was two years, and still, contribution for a period exceeding that, was deducted.

¶10

We do not intend to express any opinion, or view, at this stage. Since the learned Single Judge decided the matter at a time when the appellants were not parties, we feel it appropriate to set aside the order in the writ petition and remand the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh disposal and hearing, duly directing that the appellants herein shall stand impleaded as respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition.

¶11

Pending further orders, any contribution can be deducted only for the left over recognised term of the Unions. The arrangement to be made after expiry of the recognised term, shall be dealt with separately with the mutual consent of the parties.

¶12

The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

The miscellaneous petitions filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.

¶14

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶15

_____________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J.

¶16

Date:09.12.2014 GJ

Road Transport Corporation of v. D. Anandam, S/o Hanmanthu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Road Transport Corporation of v. D. Anandam, S/o Hanmanthu

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

Food Corporation of India, Vs Presiding Officer

Food Corporation of India, Vs Presiding Officer

Food Corporation of India, Rep.by its Chairman Vs Presiding Officer

M/s Prashanth Enterprises, Vs The Income Tax Officer

Km/S. Melville Finest Ltd., Vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

M/s. Ana Labs. Vs Dy.Commissioner of Income-Tax