Dismissed

The Management of L.v.Prasad Eye Institute v. Presiding Officer

Telangana HC11 Apr 2023WP/20409/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the Management of L.V.Prasad Eye Institute challenging an award from Labour Court-I. The court held the petition was infructuous as the petitioner and union had reached an out-of-court settlement involving compensation payments.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous and closure of miscellaneous applications.

The Management of L.v.Prasad Eye Institute… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁷ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:20to9 OF 2002

¶7

Between:

¶8

The Management of L.V.Prasad Eye lnstitute, Rep. by its Dy. Director (Admn), Smt. Vijaya L Ramam, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad,

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

,1, Presiding Officer, Labour Court-|, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.

¶12

The G.gneral Secretary,, L.V. Prasad Eye lnstitute Employees Union, Regn.No.B-2137, H.No. 8-2-2691191381-8, Road No.2, Banjara Hi[s,

¶13

...RESPONDEN{5

¶14

Petition under Article 226 ol 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature writ of certiorari calling for the records in lD.No.S of 1999 daled 14.2.2002 from the file of first respondent, and to quash the same.

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2002(WPMP. NO: 25583 oF 2002)

¶16

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 the operation of the award daled 14.2.2002 passed by the first respondent in l.D.No.5 of 1999.

¶17

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2003^{(WPMP.NO: 2622 OF 2003)}

¶18

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{frledin supportof the petition,the High Court may be pleased to} permit the^{petitionerto mention the matter pertaining to the contentsof the order} passed on 24t12t2002^{in W.PM P No 30596/2002in W P No 2040912002 and} seek clarification^{of the same'}

¶19

l.A. NO: 2oF^{2003(WPMP . NO: 5480 O} F 2003)

¶20

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC prayingthatin the circumstancesstated} intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto post the above^{matter i.e.2O4O9 of 2OO2for final hearing subjectto part heard} immed iatelY

¶21

t.A. NO^{:3OF2003(WPMP.NO: 7321 OF2003)}

¶22

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to} modify the^{order passed on 11 10 2002 in WP M.P No 25583 of 2002 by''} permitting the^{petitionerto pay wages under Sec17-Bol the lndustrialDisputes} Act, to the^{workmenin disPute '}

¶23

lA NO:^{1 OF 2021}

¶24

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to} direct the^{First RespondentLabour Court or Tribunalto followthe age old} practice of receiving^{the 17 B wages paid by way of challansin to its head of} accountorinthealternatetodirecttheHonourableRegistrarofthisllonourable Court to^{receivethese 17 B wagesinto writaccountand disbursethe sameto} theconcerncontractemployeesinvolvedinthisdisputealterdueverificationand identification^{of the employee / workmen concerned'}

¶25

Counsel for^{the Petitioner: M/S' G SUDHA} C"rn"ef for the^{RespondentNo.1 : GP FOR LABOUR} C"r.""f for the Respondent^{No.2: K.V. SATYANARAYANRAO} The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶26

THIi IION'BI,E SRI JUSTICE A. ABTIISHEK REDDY

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.20409 ot 2002

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

\ \

¶30

Questioning^{the order dated 14.02.2002passedby the} respondent No. I - Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.5 of 1999, the present Writ

¶31

Petition has been filed.

¶32

Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner - Management of L.V. Prasad Eye Institute, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, rep. by its Deputy Director (Admn), has placed on record the letter dated 20.03.2023 addressed to her by the petitioner and stated that as per the out of Court settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 General Secretary, L.V. Prasad Eye Institute Employees Union, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, the petitioner Management has agreed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.1,35,000i- to each person as full and final settlement of all their claims, which includes all dues and Rs.50,000/- to the

¶33

heirs ofthe deceased.

¶34

,\1R.,, 2 \ P \ ) lrrlO(l ol,,()(),)

¶35

Having regard to thc ahove, thc causc in thc^prescnt Writ

¶36

Petition does not sun,ivc fbl consideration^{and this Writ}

¶37

Petition is dismissed as in li-uctuous.

¶38

Miscellaneous applications, il any^{pending, shallstand}

¶39

closed. There shall be no ordet'as^{to costs.}

¶40

SD'. G.^SIREESHA ASSISTANLREGISTRAR /TTRUE^COPY/' sEcl#N^oFFlcER

¶41

¶42

1 21 8ffi Two EEli-Yl's:y,ilix"ii#ji"?niqil,Flgu*orreansanaroUrlCCs^{to GP for LaDour'} 4 Two CD^CoPies

TJ GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1110412023

ORDER

WP.No.20409 ot 2002

.t t\ F- STAI{:
(
<br>:) +
11 li['{ ?[Il
CL()
'7,
I
*-

¶49

DISMISSING THE WP

¶50

AS INFRUCTUOUS

¶51

WITHOUT COSTS.

The Management of L.v.Prasad Eye Institute v. Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of L.v.Prasad Eye Institute v. Presiding Officer

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

M. Balraj Vs K. Venkat Reddy

Azmeera Swamy Nayak and 3 Others Vs the Principal, A.P.T.W. Residential School

Sri Devi Bagh Welfare Society Vs M. Ram Krishna Rao

B. Eshwaraiah (Died) Lr Vs Dr.D.Ramakrishna, And 3 Others

K.Ramulu, Apsrtc, Zonal Workshop, Karimnagar Vs Apsrtc., Rep.by Its M.D., Musheerabad, Hyderabad and Another

Khaja Hussain, Mahabubnagar Dist. Vs T. Ram Reddy, Mahabubnagar Dist. and 3 Others