Telangana High Court
WA/2578/2005 of Trikaal Advertising (P) Ltd., Plot No.27, UBI Colony, Vs The Honble Labour Court-I, represented by its Presiding on 28 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT APPEAL NO.2578 OF 2005. DATED: 28-12-2005 Between Trikkal Advertising (p) Ltd., Plot No.27, UBI colony,Road No.3 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, rep. By Its Director. ….Appellant And 1. The Hon’ble Labour
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.
Conclusion
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
AND
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA
WRIT APPEAL NO.2578 OF 2005.
DATED: 28-12-2005
Between
Trikkal Advertising (p) Ltd.,Plot No.27, UBI colony,Road No.3Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, rep. By Its Director.
And
….Appellant
1. The Hon’ble Labour Court-Irep. By its Presiding Officer,Hyderabad and another.
…Respondents
JUDGMENT(Per the Hon’ble B.Prakash Rao, J)
Heard both sides and at their request, the main appeal itself is taken upfor disposal.
The appellant herein is the writ petitioner which has obtained interimdirection in the writ filed challenging the orders passed by the Labour Court in regard to the entitlement of the 2[nd] respondent herein, pending writ petition.
The learned single Judge granted interim suspension subject to conditionthe petitioner deposits half of the amount covered by the order of the LabourCourt within a period of six weeks from that day and on such deposit, the 2[nd]respondent herein shall be entitled to withdraw the same, without furnishing anysecurity.
The main submission made on behalf of the appellant is that as per theorders passed by the Labour Court, the interest amount runs far beyond theprincipal amount and therefore, the amount to be deposited is much more thanthe amount actually the 2[nd] respondent would be entitled to.
Having considered the submissions made and on perusal of record, it isseen that these are the questions which cannot be gone into in this appeal atthis juncture which are being discretionary in its nature. There is no disputewith regard to the orders passed by the Labour Court and half of the amountwas directed to be deposited. Therefore, in view of the discretion alreadyexercised by the learned single Judge, we do not find any reasons to interdictthe same.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
----------------------------
B.PRAKASH RAO, J
Dated: 28-12-2005.
-------------------------------
P.S.NARAYANA, J