Dismissed

The Senior Regional Manager, F.C.I., Hyd and 1, v. v.Muralidhar Rao, HYDERABAD-16 and 1

Telangana HC20 Mar 2023WP/15916/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice A. Abhishek Reddy of the Telangana High Court dismissed Writ Petition No. 15916 of 2006. The court found the matter squarely covered by a common judgment of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court and held that no order as to costs was required, effectively dismissing the petition without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Senior Regional Manager, F.C.I., Hyd… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁷¹

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 15916 OF 2006

¶7

Between:

¶8

The Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of lndia, HACA Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶9

The District Manager, Food Corporation of lndia, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . V. Muralidhar Rao, S/o.V. Dasharatha Ramaiah, N o.1 6-9-7 49 I 41, Race Course Road, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad-16.

¶13

The Central Govemment lndustrial Tribunal, Cum Labour Court at Hyderabad, Rep by..its Presiding Officer.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, after calling for the records relating to the order, dt.4-3-2005 in lndustrial Dispute L.C.l.D.No.7B of 2002 on the file of the Central Government lndustrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad and quash or set aside the directions contained in Para-12 of the Award as it is arbitrary,and illegal and make.

¶16

I.A.NO:,L OE 2q-6(WPMP. NO: 19844 OF 2006)

¶17

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 directions contained in Para-12 of the Award, dt.04-03-2005 in lndustrial Dispute L.C.l.D.No.78 of 2002 on the file of the Central Government lndustrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI.MEHERCHAND NORI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : --

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI.GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUW SOLICITOR.GENERAL OF INDIA

¶20

The Court made the^{followingORDER}

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15915 of 2006

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

j I

¶25

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners-Corporation as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has stated that the issue arising in the present writ petition 1S squarely covered by the common judgment passed by a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.Nos.1812 of 2003 and batch, dated 20.07.201,0, wherein it was held as under:

¶26

"In the circuntstances, 70e do not find nny error utith regnrd to the npplicnbility of Section 25-H of tlrc Act and therefore, rue nre not going into tlu snme. Hmting regnrd to the prLn'isions of the Contrnct Lnbour (Regulntion nnd Abolition) Act, 1970, and taking into account tlu principle laid cloun in tlrc dtcision relied on by the learned single ludge in STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS Y. NAT/ONAL UNION WATERFRONT WORKERS AND OTHERS|, zoe do not find any et'ror in the direction gtuen by the Triburn| ns confirmed by tlrc lenmed single ludge. We do lnld tlmt since tlese u',orkers are empLoyed througlt nn ngency, they nre sufficientLy cot,cred nnd protected. They cannot be tretted ns totnl nliens u.u.l tred to he extenied ruitlthencfits."

¶27

'⁽²⁰⁰¹ )⁷ scc¹

¶28

AAR, J W.P No 15916 of 2006

¶29

¶30

¶31

Having regard to the above submission and for ICASONS

¶32

alike as were stated in the aforestated common judgment dated

¶33

20.07.2070 and in terms thereof, the present Writ Petition is