Telangana High Court
WP/28474/2008 of D.Ramachander Vs Government of India, represented by the on 29 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 28474 of 2008 Between: 1 D.Ramachander S/o.Jagya 2 S.Abdul Sattar S/o.Mahboob
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No: 28474 of 2008
Between:
1 D.Ramachander S/o.Jagya
2 S.Abdul Sattar S/o.Mahboob Doula
3 K.Lakshmi W/o.Chandraiah
4 N.Yadamma W/o.Surender Reddy
5 B.Yadamma W/o.Murali
6 S.Harikanth S/o.Veeraiah
7 B.Naveen Kumar S/o.Lingam Goud
8 K.Ambika W/o.Sawarappa
9 S.Yadagiri S/o.Prakash
10 Akthar Hussain S/o.Maqbul Hussain
11 G.Raju S/o.Shivaji
12 M.Kiran Kumar S/o.Sadanand
13 Anasuyamma W/o.Yadaiah
14 Tuka Bai W/o.Kalogi Gajre
15 P.Kamala W/o.Shankar
All workers employed by the Central Excise & Customs Deptt., C/o. Md.Akbar Ali, D.No.9-3-104, Harijan Basti, Hasmathpet, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad - 500 009.
... PETITIONERS
AND
1 Government of India, represented by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi.
2 Commissionerate - II, Central Excise & Customs Department, represented by the Commissioner Kendriya Shulk Bhavan, Lal Bahadur Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. Bahadur Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.
3 Commissionerate - IV, Central Excise & Customs Department, represented by the Commissioner Kendriya Shulk Bhavan, Lal Bahadur Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.
4 Commissionerate , Central Excise & Customs Department, represented by the Commissioner, Tirupati.
5 Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central), ATI Campus, Opp: Shivam Vidyanagar, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may bepleased to issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in thenature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the inaction of the firstRespondent in not making a reference of the industrial disputes vide theconciliation proceedings F.No. 8/1/007-E3, F.No.8/4/2007-E3, F.No.8/5/2007-E3 and F.No. 8/7/2007-E3 on the file of the fifth Respondent foradjudication to the competent Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court is arbitraryand unlawful dereliction of duty, and further direct the first Respondent toforthwith refer the said disputes for adjudication and pass such other order ororders.
Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.BALAGOPAL
Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASSTSOLICITOR GEN)
The Court made the following:
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:
This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inactionof respondent No.1 in making reference of the industrial disputes in respectof the conciliation proceedings F.No.8/1/2007-E3, F.No.8/4/2007-E3,F.No.8/5/2007-E3 and F.No.8/7/2007-E3, on the file of respondent No.5 foradjudication to the competent Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court as arbitraryand illegal.
2. Heard Sri K. Balagopal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. T.Balajayasree, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearingfor respondent Nos.1 and 5 and perused the record.
3. The limited grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is thatdespite respondent No.5 reporting failure of conciliation proceedings as farback as December 2007, respondent No.1 has not so far taken a decisionon reference of the disputes to the competent Industrial Tribunal or LabourCourt.
As the grievance of the petitioners is innocuous, the writ petition is
disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to take a decision, if notalready taken, on the issue of reference of the disputes raised beforerespondent No.5 in respect of which failure reports were submitted by him,within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder. The decision taken by respondent No.1 shall be communicated to thepetitioners. There shall be no order as to costs.
December 29, 2008DSK
_____________________
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J