Telangana High Court
WP/9914/1999 of M.Sivaiah Vs Works Manager, on 26 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.9914 of 1999 Dated:26.12.2007 Between M.Sivaiah ..Petitioner and Works Manager, APSRTC, Miyapur …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.9914 of 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the proceedings
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
W.P.No.9914 of 1999 Dated:26.12.2007
Between
M.Sivaiah
and
..Petitioner
Works Manager, APSRTC, Miyapur
…Respondents
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 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.9914 of 1999
This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamusto declare the proceedings No.L4/785(194) 1998CRD dated 5.8.1998 as arbitrary and illegal andconsequently to direct the respondents to grantcontinuity of service along with back wages to thepetitioner.
It appears that the petitioner was suspended from service in view of certain charges framedagainst him on 10.2.1986 and after conducting adetailed enquiry, he was removed from service on8.3.1987. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an application under Section 2-A (2) of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Labour Court,however, held that the order of removal was valid,but directed the respondents to consider the case ofthe petitioner for appointment as a Driver in any future vacancy, without reference to the earlierirregularity. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No.19923 of 1994 and the said writ petitionwas disposed of on 17.6.1997 by a Division Benchof this Court observing as under:
“Heard. Having regard to the facts andcircumstances of the case, we direct thepetitioner to make a representation to theauthorities within two months from the dateof receipt of the order and on receipt of suchrepresentation, the authorities to considerthe case of the petitioner within three monthsthereafter keeping in view the observationmade by the labour Court.
Keeping in view the said observations, the respondents passed the impugned order directingreinstatement of the petitioner without continuity ofservice and without any back wages. Aggrieved bythe same, the petitioner filed the present writpetition.
The writ petition is misconceived. T h e lis between the parties was already concluded in theJudgment of the Division Bench dated 17.6.1997. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits andthe same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
rkk
_________
26-12-2007