Allowed

M/s. U Foam Private Ltd., B - 15 and 16, Industrial Estate, v. The Commissioner of Labour

Telangana HC10 Jun 2016WA/223/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal was disposed of by reiterating the direction of the impugned order to file an appeal. The court directed the appellant to seek redress on the questions of prejudice and bias before the appellate authority and declared that such lower court observations shall not operate.

What did the court decide?

The appellant is directed to file an appeal as per the impugned order; the lower court's observations on prejudice and bias shall not operate, and the issue will be dealt with by the appellate authori

M/s. U Foam Private Ltd., B - 15 and 16, Industrial… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶3

WRIT APPEAL No. 223 of 2009

¶4

Date: 10.06.2016

¶5

Between:

¶6

M/s. U Foam Pvt., Ltd., rep., by its Manager HR and IR, Hyderabad.

¶7

… Appellant

¶8

And

¶9

The Commissioner of Labour, Govt., of A.P., Hyderabad & others.

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶12

WRIT APEPAL No. 223 of 2009

¶13

ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

¶14

This appeal is directed against the order, dated 31.12.2008, passed in W.P.No.16726 of 1999, whereby the appellant’s writ petition has been disposed of making the following observations in the concluding paragraph. The concluding paragraph reads thus:

¶15

“Admittedly, the order impugned in this writ petition is appealable under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, in my view, interests of justice would be met, if the petitioner is permitted to file an appeal against the impugned order. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted six (6) weeks’ time to file appeal before the appellate authority. If such an appeal is filed within the time stipulated above, the appellate authority shall entertain and dispose of the same on merits after hearing both the parties.”

¶16

Sri K. Arun Kumar, learned counsel holding for Sri M. Panduranga Rao, advocate on record for the appellant, submits that once having relegated the appellant to remedy of appeal, learned Judge ought not to have recorded any findings on the question of prejudice or bias.

¶17

From the impugned order we find that learned Judge has considered the question of prejudice or bias. In view thereof, when we expressed that the appellant can file appeal, as observed

¶18

in the concluding paragraph of the impugned order, and in which case all contentions of the appellant even in respect of the question of prejudice and bias can also be kept open, learned counsel for the respondents also agreed for the same.

¶19

Hence, we dispose of the appeal with the following order: “The appellant to file appeal as observed in the concluding paragraph of the impugned order, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from today. It is open to the appellant to raise the question of prejudice and bias also before the appellate authority. If any such plea is raised, we hope and trust that the appellate authority shall deal with the same on merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned order in respect thereof. In short, the observations made by learned Judge in the impugned order on the question of prejudice and bias shall not operate. All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶20

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶21

_______________________ DILIP B.BHOSALE, ACJ

¶22

__________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J

¶23

Date: 10.06.2016 ES

M/s. U Foam Private Ltd., B - 15 and 16, Industrial Estate, v. The Commissioner of Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. U Foam Private Ltd., B - 15 and 16, Industrial Estate, v. The Commissioner of Labour

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

Gadde Shoba Rani Vs The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Pasupuleti Lakshmi Narayana Rao, S/o Satya Narayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

L. Lakshmi Devi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Jeevaka Industries Limited (MDK-1150), Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission Vs M/s. Mahrishi Alloys Private Ltd.

Mubarak Bin Abdullah Amshan Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh