Telangana High Court
WP/24647/2004 of P. Chalama Reddy, Vs The Depot Manager, on 29 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 24647 of 2004 Between: P. Chalama Reddy, S/o. P. Pulla Reddy, R/o. Shaik Palli Village,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANUWRIT PETITION NO : 24647 of 2004
Between:
P. Chalama Reddy, S/o. P. Pulla Reddy, R/o. Shaik Palli Village, Pedda Pappur Mandal, Anantapur District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Tadipatri Depot, Anantapur District. 2 The Principal Secretary, Government of A.P. Labour Employment, Training & Factories (Lab-I) Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleasedto issue or order or orders, or direction more particularly one in the nature ofwrit of mandamus declaring the letter No. 2651/Lab.I/A2/2002-1 dated 7-2-03 ofthe 2nd respondent in refusing to refer the matter to labour court foradjudication as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified, unsustainable contrary to law andset-a-aside the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to refer thematter to labour court.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.RAMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondents: MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY
The Court at the admission stage, made the following:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO : 24647 of 2004
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner is working as a Conductor in the 1[st] respondent-Corporation. Hewas imposed a penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect.He preferred an appeal to the concerned authority and the said appeal wasrejected. Later he filed a review petition before the Regional Manger of theCorporation and it was also rejected on 28-04-2001 . The petitionersubsequently filed an application under Section 2-K of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 on 30-07-2002 to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour through theEmployees’ Union. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour submitted failurereport of conciliation under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act andsubsequently, the second respondent passed an order on 07-02-2003by observing that the dispute raised by the Union does not merit reference foradjudication as it was raised after a lapse of more than eleven years byfollowing an unreported judgment of this Court in W.P.No.2206 of 2000.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a Judgemnt of the SupremeCourt in support of his contention. I n AJAIB SINGH v. SIRHIND CO-OP.MARKETTING-CUM-PROCESSING SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED ANDANOTHER, the Supreme Court held that the provisions of Article 137 of theSchedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedingsunder the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the relief under the Act cannot bedenied to the workman merely on the ground of delay.
3. In the light of the above judgment of the Supreme Court, the ground on whichthe impugned order passed cannot sustain. The 2[nd] respondent also committedan error in showing the period from the date of initial order instead of showingthe period from the date of rejection of review petition on 28-04-2001.
4. In the light of the above circumstances, the order of the second respondent dated 07-02-2003 is set aside. The 2[nd] respondent is accordingly directed torefer the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication under the provisions of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 within two months from the date of receipt of acopy of this order.
5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.
December 29, 2004
Kvr
To
___________________
1 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Tadipatri Depot, Anantapur District. 2 The Principal Secretary, Government of A.P. Labour Employment, Training & Factories (Lab-I) Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.
3. 2 C.D copies.