Dismissed¶44

Maturi Venkata Subba Rao College Non-teaching Staff Union v. The Labour Court-Ii

Telangana HC27 Feb 2025WP/22266/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularisation of adhoc employee; private unaided educational institution; writ jurisdiction under Article 226; certiorari against Labour Court award; I.D.No.123 of 2012; authorised representative of union; G.O.Ms.No.153 dated 16.05.1994; G.O.Rt.No.227 dated 20.05.2015; misjoinder and non-joinder of parties; Section 151 CPC interim orders; vacation of interim order dated 11.07.2016; dismissal with no costs; Telangana High Court, decision dated 27.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioners; writ petition dismissed; interim order dated 11.07.2016 in W.P.M.P.No.27378 of 2016 vacated; pending miscellaneous applications closed; no costs. ¶44

Maturi Venkata Subba Rao College Non-teaching… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioners; writ petition dismissed; interim order dated 11.07.2016 in W.P.M.P.No.27378 of 2016 vacated; pending miscellaneous applications closed; no costs.

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the industrial dispute in I.D.No.123 of 2012 was validly maintainable, given the Labour Court's finding that the claim statement was not signed by an authorised representative and that Sri Bhagath Simha was not competent to represent the union at the time of filing. +2 more

¶37

Court's answer

The Labour Court's finding that the dispute was not maintainable for lack of valid authorisation is neither perverse nor without basis; in the absence of a properly authorised representative, the dispute could not have been validly initiated.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The 2nd petitioner's claim for regularisation and application of G.O.Ms.No.153 cannot be granted in writ jurisdiction, as she was appointed on an adhoc basis in a private unaided institution and no statutory provision grants her such right; the question of regularisation must be considered by the Management in accordance with its internal policies, subject to law, and not by judicial direction.

¶43

Key takeaways

Finding no error in the award of the Labour Court dated 06.04.2015, the writ petition fails and is dismissed; the interim order dated 11.07.2016 in W.P.M.P.No.27378 of 2016 stands vacated, with no costs, and pending miscellaneous applications stand closed.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana (Single Bench, Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.) dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the award dated 06.04.2015 of Labour Court-II, Hyderabad in I.D.No.123 of 2012 (published in G.O.Rt.No.227 dated 20.05.2015), by which the union's dispute seeking regularisation of the 2nd petitioner (Office Assistant on adhoc basis since 01.08.2007 in a private unaided engineering college) and application of G.O.Ms.No.153 dated 16.05.1994 was rejected on the ground that the claim statement was not signed by an authorised representative. Held: (i) the Labour Court's maintainability finding based on lack of valid authorisation of Sri Bhagath Simha was neither perverse nor without basis, and without a properly authorised representative the dispute could not have been validly initiated; (ii) regularisation and G.O.Ms.No.153 benefits cannot be granted in writ jurisdiction for an adhoc employee of a private unaided institution absent any statutory right, the question being one for the Management's internal policies subject to law. Interim order dated 11.07.2016 in W.P.M.P.No.27378 of 2016 vacated; no costs; miscellaneous applications closed.

¶1

t³³⁰⁰¹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 22266 OF 2016

¶8

Between:

¶9

't - Maturi Venkata Subba Rao College Non-teaching Staff Union, (Regd No.25'18), Nadergul, Saroomagar [/andal, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its General Secretary, C. Bhagat Simha.

¶10

Ms. B. Anju Rao, D/o.Late B. Ramachander Rao,, No. 11-13-1151N1, Kothapet, Backside Asthalakshmi Temple, Balaji Nagar, Hyderabad - 500035.

¶11

.....PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The Labour Court-ll, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Chandravihar Complex, M. J. Road, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Management, Rep. by its Principal, IU.V.S.R. Engineering College, Nadergul, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or orders, Direction or Directions to quash the Award of the 1st respondent in LD.No.123 of 2O12 dated 06.04.2015, published in G.O.Rt.No.227 dated 20.05.2015 to the extent of the 2nd petitioner.and to issue consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to regularise the service of the 2nd petitioner with all consequential benefits.

¶17

I.A.NO:1 OF 2016^{(WPMP.NO:27378} O F 2016)

¶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 direct the 2nd respondent to continue the 2nd petitioner in service as Office Assistant in the Administrative Department of the College by paying salary in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 153 dated 16-05-1994, pendin(l disposal of the writ petition.

¶19

|.A.NO:1 OF 2019

¶20

Between

¶21

The Management, Rep. by its Principal, M.V.S.R Engineering Oollege, Nadergul, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶22

.....PETITIO NERYRESPONDENT

¶23

I/aturi Venkata Subba Rao College Non{eaching Staff Union, (Regd No.2518), Nadergul, Saro_omagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. 5y its General Secretary, C. Bhagat Simha.

¶24

Ms. B. Anju Rao, D/o.Late B. Ramachander Rao,, cUo. 11-13-1151N1, Kothapet, Backside Asthalakshmi Temple, Balaji trlagar, Hyderabad - 500035

¶25

.....RESPONDE:NTS/PETITIONERS

¶26

The Labour Court-ll, Hyderabad, Rep. by its presiding Officer, Chandravihar Complex, M. J. Road, Hyderabad.

¶27

.....tlESPONDENT No.1

¶28

Petition Under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court ray be pleased to vacate the interim order dated:'l 1-07-2016 in W.p.M.p. N o.2731812016 in W.P.No.222661201 6, consequently dismiss the W.p.No.22Z66t 201 6.

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Gp FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI HARENDER PRASAD The Court made the following ORDER

¶30

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.2225 of 2016

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This writ petition has been filed challenging the Award^passed by the 1't respondent in I.D. No.123 of 2012, dated 06.04.2OL5, and published in G.O.Rt.No.227, dated 20.05.2015. The petitioners have sought to set aside the said award as illegal and unsustainable and prayed for a direction to regularise the services of the 2nd petitioner and grant her the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.153 dated 16.05.1994.

¶34

The case of the petitioner is that 2nd petitioner claims to be working as an Office Assistant in the Administrative wing of respondent No.2 since 01.08.2007 on an adhoc basis. It is submitted that over the years, she was cohtinued in service with revised consolidated salaries, the latest being Rs.10,760/- per month, but was not granted regularisation or other employment benefits. 3. It is further submitted that the union raised a dispute before the Labour Department regarding regularisation and application of G.O.Ms.No.153 for 11 employees, including the 2nd petitioner. The matter was

¶35

¶36

referred to the Labour Court, which adjudicated the dispute in I.D.No.123 of 20L2. The Lerbour Court, however, dismissed the dispute mainly on the ground that the claim statement was not signed by an authorised representative of the union and that Sri Bhagath Simha was not competent to represent the union ar: the time of filing the ID.

¶37

It is also submitted that the petitioners challenge this finding and argue that the Labour Co.rrt erred in holding that Sri Bhagath Simha lacked authorisation They also contend that on merits, the Labour Court failed to appreciate the admissions made by MW1 (the Principal of the College) regarding the eligibility of thc, concerned employees for regularisation, and that the denial of benefits was discriminatory.

¶38

On the other hand, the 2nd respondrlnt filed a detailed counter affidavit raising several preliminary objections, including that the writ petiti,:n is not maintainable due to misjoinder and non-joinderr of proper parties, since Matrusri Institute of Post Gradui:te Studies was not made a party. It was further submitted that the

¶39

2"d respondent is a^private unaided^educational institution and therefore not amenable to writ^jurisdiction for service matters of this nature, which are contractual and non-statutory in nature.

¶40

It was also submitted that the Labour Court rightly held that Sri Bhagath Simha, not being in service and lacking valid authorisation, could not have maintained the dispute. The znd respondent contends that the services of other similarly situated^persons were considered for regularisation only after they made individual representations and were not part of the dispute raised improperly by the union.

¶41

It is further submitted that disciplinary^proceedings were initiated against the Tnd petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition, culminating in a decision to dismiss her from service. The said decision was approved by the Commissioner for Technical Education^on 2L.02.2019. The interim order^passed by this Court dated 11.07.2016 has^prevented the 2nd respondent from giving effect to the dismissal.

¶42

This Court, having considered the pleadings and material on record, is of the view that the Labour Court's finding on the issue of maintainability of ther dispute due to lack of valid authorisation is neither [)erverse nor without basis. In the absence of a properly authorised representative, the dispute could not have been validly initiated.

¶43

Further, the 2nd petitioner's claim for rilgularisation and application of G.O.Ms.No.153 cannot be granted tn writ jurisdiction, especially when she was appointed on an adhoc basis in a private unaided institutic,n and there exists no statutory provision granting her such right. The question of regularisation must be considered by the Management in accordance with their interrral policies, subject to law, and not by way of judicial direction in the present circumstances.

¶44

In view of the above facts and circumstarnces of the case, this Court does not find any error in the award of the Labour Court dated 06.04.2015and the vrrit petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Interim crder dated

¶45

17.07.20t6 in W,P,M.P.No.27378 of 20t6 stands

¶46

vacated. No costs.

¶47