Disposed

R. Vijay Gopal v. Amazon Development Center India Pvt. Ltd.

Telangana HC23 Feb 2021WP/3450/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged provisions under the Telangana Shops and Establishments Act and inaction by Labour authorities regarding his termination. The High Court disposed of three interim applications, directing the Commissioner of Labour to decide pending complaints within four weeks and to suspend the impugned Act clause.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the Respondent No.3 (Commissioner of Labour) to decide pending complaints against the petitioner within four weeks.

R. Vijay Gopal Vs Amazon Development Center India… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD^{DAYOF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE^{HIMA KOHLI} AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN^REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITIO N NO. 3450 0F²⁰²¹

¶6

Between:

¶7

R. Viiay Gopal, S/o. Raghavan,^{aged 32 years, Occ Unemployed, Fl/o. H. No. 12-13-} 1o85i72,3rd floor, St 11;Shirdi Sai^{Nagar,Tarnaka, Secunderabad-500017.}

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 Amazon Development Center lndia^{Pvt. Ltd. Rep- by. lndia HumanResource} Director, Jayabtieri Orange Towers,^{Jairai, Road Number 2, Financial District,} Nanakaramguda, Hyderabad.^{Telangana500032}

¶11

2 o"oirtmeni of LaSour. Emplovme-nt^{Training and Factories' Government of} ietinqana, Rep. by.^{Principal'Secretary, BRKR Bhawan, NH 44' Hill Fort,} Adarsh Naoar. Hvderabad, Telanqana 500063.

¶12

3 ine Co.mjssion'er of Labour,^{Labour, Employment Trainingand Factories.Rep} by. Commissioner, TAKS^{Bhavan, BehindDevi Theatre, RTC X Roads,} Hvderabad

¶13

4 tr,4inistrv of Labour and Emplovment, Government^{of lndia Repby. Secretary} tLjOouland^{Employment), ShrimShakti BhawanRail tr/arg.,New Delhi-110001}

¶14

,,,RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of^{the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith,the High Court may be pleased} to issue a writ, order or^{direction more particularlyone in the nature of "writof} lMandamus": i. To declare the^{section73 (1) (a) of the Telangana State Shopsand} Establishments Act, 1988^{as arbitrary,unco nstitutiona l, illegaland againstPublic} Policy and needs to be^{struckdown. ii. To declare the condition (a), issuedby} respondent no.3, through G.O.^{Ms. 25, LabourEmploymentTrainingand} Factories(Labour) Department,^{Dated 25.07. 2019 as arbitrary, unconstitutional,} illegal and against the^{spirit of the Telanganashops andEstablishmentAct, 1988} and thus needs to be struck^{down. iii. To direct the respondentno. 3 to submitan} action taken report with^{regardsto the complaints/representationsmade by the} petitioner before and after termination^{of his employmentin a time-boundmanner} iv. To declare the lnaction^{by respondents 2 and 3, with regard to the complaintby} the petitioner, as arbitrary^{and derelictionof duty v. To declare the actionof} Respondent No.1 is in^{violation of Section 43(2) of TelanganaShopsand}

¶16

.--t---

¶17

Establishment Act, 1988. vi. Any other order or orders, this court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of this case in the interest of justice and fair play. lA NO:'l oF 2021

¶18

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated jn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 to take an action against Respondent No.i and submit an action taken report with regards to the com p la ints/rep rese ntatio ns made by the petitioner before and after termination of his employment in a time-bound manner pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and fair-play.

¶20

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying theit in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct respondent no 2 and 3, to come up with a limit on number of overtime working hours to give meaning to condition (a) of G.O. Ms.25, Labour Employment Training and Factories (Labour) Department, Dated 25.07. 2019 pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and fair-play.

¶22

lA NO: 3 OF 2021

¶23

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 Suspend the section 73 (1) (a) of the Telangana State Shops and Establishments Act, 1S8B as arbitrary, u ncon stitutiona l, illegal pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and fair-play.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. SIDDHARTHA GOUD

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: GP FOR LABOUR

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: -

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

i I

Item No.2

THE HOYBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI AND 1'HE HOYBt.t.. SI{t ,tt sl't( t,. t}. /t .IAYSE,N REDDY

¶33

\'.l'.\o.3J50 ol 2021

¶34

ORDER: (Per the I{on'blc thc Chicl'.lustice tlinra Kohli)

¶35

I . Learned Standing Counsel tbr the Central Govemment appears on behalfofthe respondent No.4.

¶36

Though several reliefs have been prayed for by the petitioner in the present petition, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that tbr the present, the petitioner wishes to press prayer clauses No.3 and 4 which are for issuing directions to the respondent No.3 Department of Labour to decide the pending complaint dated 27.11.2020, follorved by another complaint dated 08.12.2020 against the respondent No.l (ex-employer of the petitioner), who had terminated his services on 27.1 1.2020

¶37

Learned counsel fbr the respondent No.3 states that the proceedings based on the contplaints received from the petitioner arc going on. He assures the courl that if granted a reasonable period 01' tbur rveeks, the said corrplaints shall be decided under intimation to the petitioner and the respondent No. I .

¶38

In view of the submission made hereinabove, the present petition is disposed of with directions issued to the respondent No.3 to decide the pending complaints of the petitioner within a period of four weeks, under intimation to him and the respondent No.1.

¶39

ll .l'..'o. 3450 ol 202I

¶40

Puga I ol 2

¶41

Needless to state^{that ileither party is aggrievedby the decision} taken, they shall be^{entitled to seek appropriatelegal recoursellthe} petitioner approaches the Court,^{he can seekthe relieisprayed for at} prayer clauses No.l and 2,^{whichshall be examinedin accordance}

¶42

with law.

¶43

6 The present^petition is^{disposed of along with the pending}

¶44

applications, ifany,

¶45

SD/.K.ONESIM ASSISTAN T REGIS ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶46

¶47

To, 1. The commissioner,^{commissioner of Labour, Lg[o-ur, Employment Trainingand} ' iu.toi[t, rAkS eharrn, Behind Devi Theatre, RTC X Roads' Hyderabad

¶48

1. o;; CC1;^{Sri V. Siddhartha Goud. Advocateto^Pt]Cl} 3. i;; CC.io Oi^{t"r Linoui,frigh dourtfor the State bf Telangana at Hyderabad} tOUTl

¶49

a b"#'iC to Sri Namavarapu^{RaieshwarRao, Assistant Solicitor General (OPUC)}

¶50

Two CD^CoPies.

¶51

l\4P

¶52

Pqe 2 of 2

¶53

tl.P.No. 3450 of 2021

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310212021

ORDER

WP.No.3450 of 2021

I dE TAIei
)a'
o 0 4 t4,4f, 2021 -!,
J/
DqspA.iC

¶59

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT^PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

R. Vijay Gopal v. Amazon Development Center India Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Vijay Gopal v. Amazon Development Center India Pvt. Ltd.

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

R.Yadagiri Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Sri Mohan Rao Patel Vs State of Telangana and 2 others

Vojjela Vishnuvardhan, Nizamabad Dist and 5 Others Vs Smt. Chukka Padmavathi, Hyd and 4 Others

M.Krishna Vs The Registrar (Administration)

Sri Pochampally Muralidhar Rao Vs Sri Rapolu Mahesh Kumar

K.Yadaiah Vs K.Jyothi and 2 Others