Dismissed¶27

B.Srinivas Reddy, Medak District. v. the Labout Court, Hyderabad and Another

Telangana HC8 Sept 2025WP/25016/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge order of the Hon'ble Sri Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, High Court at Hyderabad, dated 08-09-2025, in Writ Petition No. 25016 of 2005 (B.SrinitrasReddy v. The Labour Court, Hyderabad-II and The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Siddipet Depot). Petition challenged, under Article 226, the denial of 20% back wages and attendant benefits by the Award in I.D.No.101 of 2003; dismissed as infructuous following a writ appeal order, with no order as to costs. No precedent cases cited or discussed; no quantum awarded.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed. ¶27

B.Srinivas Reddy, Medak District. Vs the Labout… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ I

¶2

¶3

rN rHE HrcH couRr Ar HYDERABAD E"#JI'="?#ffi^{,tJ',:Edi:IHiNA}

¶4

MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 25016 OF 2005

¶8

Between:

¶9

B.SrinitrasReddy, S/o. Bal Reddy, aged about 39 yearc, Occ: Driver, E.No.334128 Fi/o. Narayankhed, Medak District.

¶10

...permoruen

¶11

AND

¶12

t.i The l-about Court, Hydprabad - ll, Represented U11 its Presiding fficer,

¶13

:^' I 'Chandravihar Building, 4"' Floor M.J.Road, Hyderabad.l;" ,

¶14

2: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Siddipet Depot Siddipet, Medak District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumbtances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased,to call for the records from the 1't respondent.in.l,D.No.101 of 2003 and issue an^.appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, and quash the Award passed by the 1st respondent in 1.D.No.101 of 2003, dated- 2g-1-20O5, published on 16-5-2005, in so far as denying 2oo/o of the back wages and attendant benefits as illegal, unjust, contrary to law and perverse, and grant all consequential benefits.

¶17

for the Petitioner: SRI A. J. JAYAPRAKASH RAO

¶18

Gounse for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR

¶19

Counse for the Respondent No.2: SRI B. MAYUR REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL

¶20

The made the following: ORDER

¶21

i I{I i .jII I i

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.25O16 OF 2OO5

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Sri A.J. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned standing counsel for respondents submitted that the matter has become infructuous, in view of the writ appeal order and the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication.

¶26