Telangana High Court
WP/21049/2004 of Warden, B.C. Hostel, Vs Annapareddy Bitchalu, on 31 December 2013
DR. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 21049 OF 2004 ORDER: The petitioner seeks for a Writ of Certiorari to set aside the orders of attachment of movables dated 11.10.2004 in M.P.No. 1 of 2003 in I.D.No. 496 of 1991 on the file of second respondent-Labour Court, Guntur. The facts
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
WRITPETITION NO. 21049 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 seeks for a Writ of Certiorari to set asidethe orders of attachment of movables dated 11.10.2004 inM.P.No. 1 of 2003 in I.D.No. 496 of 1991 on the file ofsecond respondent-Labour Court, Guntur.
The facts leading to the present Writ Petition maybriefly be stated. The first respondent was working asKamati in B.C. Boys Hostel from 12.3.1974 till 12.9.1975. When his services were terminated, the first respondentchallenged the same by raising I.D.No. 496 of 1991. Theaward was passed on 2.9.1997 ordering reinstatement andcontinuity of service without backwages.
The first respondent-Workman later filed M.P. No. 43 of2002, seeking for the arrest of the judgment debtor. He alsofiled M.P.No. 1 of 2003 for attachment of the movables andfor the sale of the same towards realisation of the orders inthe Industrial Dispute. In M.P. No. 1 of 2003, the firstrespondent filed two applications E.A.No. 58 of 2003 andE.A.No. 63 of 2003, seeking to recall PW-2 in the former application and amendment of the amounts covered by theMP in the later application. In M.P. No. 1 of 2003, the firstrespondent herein sought for execution of the award for asum of Rs. 3,23, 630/-. Through E.A.No. 63 of 2003, thefirst respondent has been seeking for the change of theamount from Rs. 3,23,630/- to Rs. 2,28,636/-, as theamount sought for by the first respondent herein. Both theEAs came up for hearing on 11.10.2004. When thejudgment debtor sought time to file counter in theapplications, the second respondent ordered attachment ofthe movables of the judgment debtors on 11.10.2004 itselfand posted the applications to 3.12.2004.
The learned Government Pleader contended that whenthe decree holder/first respondent himself seeks for anamount of Rs. 2,28,636/- through amendment petition inE.A.No. 63 of 2003, there is no justification in attaching themovables for realisation of sum of Rs. 3,23,630/-. Thelearned Government Pleader submitted that it might beclarified that Miscellaneous Petition is for realisation of Rs.2,28,636/- and sufficient time might be granted to thejudgment debtor to honour the award.
The leaned counsel for the decree holder/firstrespondent on the other hand contended that subsequent tofiling of the Miscellaneous Petition, the first respondent is entitled to other amounts including interest and that theclaim of the petitioner may not be confined to the amount ofRs. 2,28,636/- only. Indeed the first respondent could nothave filed for a higher amount as the amount due by thedate of M.P.No. 1 of 2003 would appear to be Rs. 2,28,636/-only.
Certainly further amounts may become due to thedecree holder/first respondent. The decree holder howevercannot seek for the same through M.P.No. 1 of 2003 but canseek for the same through a separate application. So far asthe present M.P.No. 1 of 2003 is concerned, in view of theamendment petition of the decree holder himself, thejudgment debtor would be liable to a sum of Rs. 2,28,636/-only.
Consequently, this Writ Petition is disposed of holdingthat the attachment is confined to Rs. 2,28,636/-only. The petitioner/judgment debtor is granted four weekstime to deposit the money covered by M.P.No. 1 of 2003,failing which, the second respondent shall be at liberty toexecute the award in accordance with law. It is made clearthat the decree holder/first respondent is at any rate entitledto take steps for the recovery of the balance of moneycovered by M.P.No. 1 of 2003, including interest due to him.
No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in thisWrit Petition, shall also stand closed.
_____________________________
DR.JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
DATE: 31.12.2013KA