Disposed

Hcl Technologies Limited v. The Appellate Authority appointed under sec.53(1)

Telangana HC7 Feb 2014WA/63/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ appeal challenging an interim order directing deposit of Rs.5 lakh. While finding the order unsustainable prima facie, the court refrained from merits due to pending writ petition on jurisdiction. It upheld prior deposit order and fixed two-month deadline for disposal.

What did the court decide?

Interim order directing deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- set aside; order dated 17-01-2014 held valid; writ petition disposed of with liberty to seek early disposal from Single Judge.

Hcl Technologies Limited Vs The Appellate Authority… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBURARY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶3

(DATED 07-02-2014)

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶6

¶7

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶8

WA No.63 OF 2014

¶9

Between:

¶10

HCL Technologies Limited and another

¶11

….Appellants

¶12

And

¶13

The Appellate Authority appointed under Section 53 (1) of the AP Shops and Establishment Act 1988-cumDy. Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District and others

¶14

Respondents

¶15

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶16

¶17

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶18

WA No.63 OF 2014

¶19

JUDGMENT :: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram )

¶20

This writ appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge directing the appellants herein, as an interim measure, to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- before the 2^nd respondent-authority within a period of two weeks with liberty to the writ petitioner-3^rd respondent herein to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.

¶21

2. This Court by order dated 17-01-2014, while admitting the writ appeal, suspended the impugned order on condition the appellants deposit a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- within four weeks. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the order passed by this Court on 17-01-2014 has been complied with.

¶22

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the application filed by the writ petitioner-3^rd respondent herein

¶23

under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act before the 2^nd respondent-authority was for a sum of Rs.6,71,857/-. As per his claim, the said amount was payable to him towards notice pay for two months, provident fund, variable pay from 1-10-2010 to 30-09-2011 and EL encashment for 15 days. The 2^nd respondent-authority by order dated 07-01-2013 directed the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs.2,45,745/- towards leave salary and variable pay through a crossed demand draft obtained in favour of the writ petitioner-3^rd respondent within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that the amounts as directed by the 2^nd respondent-authority have already been deposited in addition to the amounts directed to be deposited by this Court by order dated 17-01-2014.

¶24

4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the 2^nd respondent-authority, the writ petitioner-3^rd respondent filed appeal before the 1^st respondent-appellate authority and the 1^st respondent by its order dated 26-07-2013 directed the appellants herein to pay a sum of Rs.23,33,333/-. This order of the 1^st respondent-appellate authority, dated 26-07-2013 was challenged in the writ petition on the ground that the appellate

¶25

authority has no power to enlarge the scope of the claim and it travelled far beyond the scope of the appeal and in the said writ petition, the impugned order came to be passed.

¶26

5. Though various contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and the writ petitioner-partyin-person, prima facie, we find that the order passed by the learned single Judge directing to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is not sustainable. However, having regard to the fact that the writ petition is yet to be decided on merits and the various contentions raised by the parties including jurisdiction and propriety of the order passed by the 1^st respondent-appellant authority have to be gone into, we refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter. However, it is made clear that the order passed by this Court on 17-01-2014 holds good and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is expedient that the writ petition shall be disposed of an early date, preferably within a period of two months from today. The parties are at liberty to make request before the learned Single Judge for early disposal of the writ petition.

¶27

6. Subject to the above modification, the writ appeal is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this case

¶28

shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to

¶29

costs.

¶30

_
G. CHANDRAIAH, J
______
CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J
Dated: 07-02-2014
NRG
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
&
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶31

WA No.63 OF 2014 per CKR,J )

¶32

Dated: 07-02-2014 NRG

Hcl Technologies Limited v. The Appellate Authority appointed under sec.53(1)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hcl Technologies Limited v. The Appellate Authority appointed under sec.53(1)

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax Hyd. Vs State Bank of Hyderabad.

Commissioner of Income Tax.Hyderabad Vs Srinivasa Hatcheries (P) Ltd.Hyd.

Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, Vs Sardar Singh Palthiya

The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Vs The Central Govt.Industrial Tribal-Cum-Labour Court

Dr.S.Pratap Vs Sri Krishnadevaraya Universiy

G. Shankar Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited