The High Court dismissed the writ appeal as the appellant company had already regularized the respondents' services by the date of the order, making further adjudication unnecessary.
Writ appeal dismissed with direction that miscellaneous petition be disposed of; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
W.A.No.445 of 2006
JUDGMENT: (Per LNR,J)
This writ appeal is filed against the order, dated 16.02.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.17116 of 1996.
The respondents were employed by the appellant between 1985 and 1987. Their grievance was that though they have put in substantial length of service, their services were not regularised. The appellant opposed the writ petition, stating inter alia that the company became sick and it is not feasible to regularise the services of the respondents. Reference was made to various writ petitions pertaining to the appellant-company. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, directing that the services of the respondents shall be regularised.
Heard Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Sri B.G.Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.
It may be true that the appellant-company has become sick and it has since been merged with HMT. That in turn has resulted in substantial reduction of work force. The fact however remains that considerable number of employees were being continued. Taking these and other aspects into account, learned Single Judge directed that the services of the respondents be regularised.
Though this writ appeal was filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, no order of stay was either passed or obtained. Obviously for that reason, the appellant itself is said to have regularised the services of the respondents through order, dated 25.07.2006. When this development is brought to the notice of the learned senior counsel for the appellant, he fairly stated that it may not be necessary to undertake any further adjudication in the matter.
Therefore, the writ appeal is dismissed.
The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J
______________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
Date: 04.12.2014 JSU
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
W.A.No.445 of 2006
Date: 04.12.2014
JSU
Appellant
Respondents
L. Narasimha Reddy
Challa Kodanda Ram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
