Dismissed

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, R.R.District. v. v.Janardhan , v.Janardhan Rao, R.R.District and Another

Telangana HC12 Aug 2021WP/26744/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by A.P.S.R.T.C. against an Industrial Tribunal award directing payment in lieu of reinstatement was dismissed by the High Court, which upheld the Labour Court's exercise of power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed for default in one part and dismissed without order as to costs in another.

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, R.R.District. Vs… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶6

wRtT PET|T|ON NO. 26744 0F 2006

¶7

Between:

¶8

The Depot Manaser, A.P.S.R.T.C., Tandur Depot, Ransa Reddy ?l]JtTi,o*=* 1 V.Janardhan @ V.Janardhan Rao, S/o,Late V.Ramulu, aged about 54 years, Occ: Un-employee & Ex-Conductor Staff No.E'1 10529, H.No.3-4-16/52, Rajendranagar Colony, Ramanthapur, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

AND

¶10

2 The lndustrial Tribunal-ll, Hyderabad represented by its Chairman.

¶11

Dismissed for default as against R-l as per Court Order dated 23.06.2011.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned award dated 07- 1 1-2005 made in I.D.No.'147l2004 lndustrial Tribunal-ll, Hyderabad published on^'1 7-01-2006 in G.O.Rt.No.33 allowing the petition in^part and directing the^petitioner herein to pay the 1st respondent a sum of Rs.1 ,00,0001 in lieu of reinstalement and other attendant benefits; and quash the same as being bad, illegal, without^jurisdiction and in valid.

¶14

WPMP. NO: 34371 OF 2006

¶15

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 order stay of execution of award dated 07-'1 1-2005 made in 1.D.No.14712004 lndustrial Tribunal-ll, Hyderabad published on 17-01-2006 in G.O.Rt.No.33, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. T. M, PRASAD

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: -

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'E LE Szu JUSTICE^{ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.267 44 of 2006

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This writ petition is fiied seeking^{to issuea writ of Certiorari} calling for the records relating to^{the impugnedaward dated} 07 .11.2005 pa,ssed by the^{IndustrialTribunal-Il,Hyderabad, in} I.D.No.14712004, published on^{17.01.2006in G'O.Rt.No.33 allowing} the petition in part and directing the^{petitioner hereinto pay the 1$} respondent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu^{of reinstatement and other} attendant bene.[its.

¶24

When the matter is taken up for hearing, leamed^{counselfor the} petitioner contended that the Labour Court had emed in^{passing the} irrpugned order in favour of respondent No. 1-workman awarding Rs.1,00,000/- to him in lieu of reinstatement.

¶25

Leamed counsel for respondent No.1-workman contended that the Labour Court has rightly passed the impugned order in exercise of its power uncler Section I 1-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the same does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶26

This Coun, having regard to the rival submissions made by the leamed counsel for both the parties, is of the considered view that the Labour Court has rightly passed the impugned order, directing the petitioner to prly a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to respondent No.1-workman in lieu of reinstatement, in exercise of its power under Section l1-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore, this Couft is not inclined to interfere with the same.

¶27

¶28

The writ petition is accordingly^{dismissed'No orderas to costs.}

¶29

Pending miscellaneous^{petitions, ifany, shall stand closed,}

¶30

SD/. K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT^RE ISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// SECTION^OFICER

¶31

To ,l . The Depot N/lanager, A,P.S.R.T.C., Tandur^D-epot, Ranga Reddy District. i. o;;-c-ii.; Sr.iv.t.^{M. Prasad, Advocate toPugl.} 3. Two CCs^{to GP tot r-uuo,iifribiiCJ"t'i"ilnJSiateot Telansana at Hvderabad'} IOUT]

¶32

Two CD^CoPies.

¶33

One SPare^CoPY.

MP DDN

X..

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210812t021

ORDER

WP.No.26744 at 2006

-( 1Sl'4 r€
1-
f, (
p
L 2021
o ?_ 'J
t\il
.1 , +r/
h .;.-) ./

¶41

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COS,TS"

¶42

\t/. o
r9<br>t

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, R.R.District. v. v.Janardhan , v.Janardhan Rao, R.R.District and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, R.R.District. v. v.Janardhan , v.Janardhan Rao, R.R.District and Another

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

Muvva Jyothi, Vs the District Collector and 3 Others

Namburi Venkateswara Rao, L.B. Nagar Vs Commissioner of Police, R.R. Dist and 2 Ot

K David Kiran, Mahaboobnagar Vs S.H.O., Jadcherla, Mahaboobnagar Dist and 3 Others

V. Vishnu Murthy, Mahabubnagar District. Vs the District Collector ( Cooperation), and 4 Others

Dr.v.Ramesh, Hyderabad. Vs the Govt.of Ap by Secy., Education Dept.Hyd.and 2 Others

B.Janardhan, Nalgonda Dist. Vs Secy. Higher Edn. Hyd and 2 Others