Dismissed

M/s Speck Systems Ltd., v. The Principal Secretary

Telangana HC11 Nov 2021WA/395/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ appeal by M/s Speck Systems Ltd. as withdrawn, granting leave to approach the Single Judge with an appropriate application, noting that the main petition was still pending and settlement had been reached.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the learned Single Judge filing appropriate application.

M/s Speck Systems Ltd., Vs The Principal Secretary — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE S] AT HYDE#JiDOF^TELANGANA

¶2

THURS?AY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWo THoUSAND AND TWENTY dl.ie-,,,".,.

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶6

WRIT APP EAL N : 395 F 2019

¶7

writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters patent preferred against the order dated 2B-01 -201 9 in 1.A.No.1 of 20 19 in wP No. 1 386 of 20l g on the fite of the High court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s Speck Systems Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director Sri K. C. M. Kumar, S/o. Pandu Rangaiah Chetty, Age 64 years Occ. Managing Director, M/s. Speck Systems Ltd., Address B-49, EC Complex, Khushaiguda t\rlandal. lVledchal, Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad. Telangana State-500 062

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

The Principal Secretary,, Government of Telangana, Lhbour Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 004

¶13

The Commissioner of Labour,, Tanguturi Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavan, Beside Devi Cinema Theater, RTC Cross Roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad - 500 o20

¶14

The Authority under payment of Wages Act and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour,, Ranga Reddy District, Tanguturi Anjaiah Karrnika Samkshema Bhavan, Beside Devi Cinema Theater, RTC Cross Roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad - 500 020

¶15

The lnspector under the Payment of Wages Act and The Assistant Labour Officer,, Moula-Ali Circle, Madchal-Malkaijgiri District, Tangutrifi Anlaiah Karrnika Samkshema Bhavan, Beside Devi Cinema Theater, RTC Cross Roads, chikkadpally' Hyderabad - 500 020

¶16

...RESpoNDENrs

¶17

lA NO: 3 OF 2019

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to stay all further proceedings in l.A. No. 1 of 2019 in W.P. No. 1386 of 2019, dated 2B-1-2019 in so far as directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.41,00,000/- including stay of all further proceedings in STC No. 23 of 2017 on the file of the Horible XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at I/alkajgiri^.

¶19

IA NO: 4 OF 2019

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to stay^{of all} further proceedings in STC No. 23 of 2017 filed by the 4th Respondent before^the Hon'ble XX Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District.

¶21

Counsel for the Appellant: SMT. K. UDAYA SRI

¶22

Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR

¶23

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶24

The Hon'bie The Chief Justice^{SatishChandra Sharma} and

¶25

The Hon'ble Sri Justice A. Raiasheker Redd),

¶26

Writ Aooeal No.395 of 2019

¶27

Jld€^{noel]l:(Perrhe Hon'ble theChief Jusrice Satish Chandra Sharma)}

¶28

T'he present Writ Appeal is arising out of interim order dated 28.01.,2019, in LA.No.1 of 2019 in !7.P.No.1386 of 2019, by u,hich the lear.red Single Judge has granted an interim order staving thc orclcr dated 15.03.2015, passed under the Minimum^\fi/ages Acr 1948, subject to deposit of Rs.41 lakhs by the appellant/u,rit pe tltroncf .

¶29

Lerrncd counsel lor the appellanr has argued beforc this Court rhut the appclllnt/Companv has paid wages to all irs emplovce s lnd scttlcmcnt has elso been arrivcd at berween the partics.

¶30

'I'he aloresaid fact has been brought to the norrce o[ this Court uideMemo dared21,06.2019, annexed to I.A.No.4 of 20i,9,

¶31

In the considered opinion o[ this Courr, as the main \X/rit Petrtion is sdll pending before the learned Single Judge, the appellant ought to have filed appropriate appLicarion before the Single Judge with a praver to modily the interim order.

¶32

5 Lcarncd counsel for the appellant, ar rhis stagc, prays frrr rvrthclras,al of thc \'rit Appeal wirh liberW to approacl.r rhe learnec] Sinulc.Juduc br, [rLing appropnatc applcadon. 6 Writ Appeal is, accordrng.ly, clismissed as r,"rthdrarvn wrth rhc aloresaid [bertr,

¶33

Consequendy, Interlocutory Applications pending if any stand

¶34

disposed of.

¶35

SD/.CH.VEN^{KATESWARU LU} DEPUW REGISTRAR

¶36

//TRUE COPY//

¶37

¶38

t _-,-SECTION OFFICER

¶39

To.''l . One CC to Smt. K.Udaya Sri,Advocate IOPUCI - i. i;; dc.iJ^{cF rot L;b;u;;'Hrslicourtfor tnd State of relansana[our]}

¶40

Two CD CoPies

¶41

One SPare^CoPY

MBC

4--

HIGH COURT^/

DATED:^111'1112021

1 H€ iA
c
Jt
2e :

JUDGMENT

WA.No.395 of²⁰¹⁹

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT APPPEAL AS WITHDRAWN,}

¶50

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶51

v
?rl,'
0

M/s Speck Systems Ltd., v. The Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Speck Systems Ltd., v. The Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kakatiya University Vs Dr. P. Sambaiah

Settipalli Shiva Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Muzammil Khan Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Ghmc)

M. Sultana Basha Vs Registrar (Recruitment) and 6 others

Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University Vs B.Kumar

Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board (Tslprb) Vs Thota Anusha