Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
S. Venkateswara Rao, vs The Labour Court on 9 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL No.292 of 2021
(Through video conferencing)
S.Venkateswara Rao,
S/o.Nookaraju, Retired Roller Driver,
R/o. Tanuku, Tanuku Municipality,
West Godavari District.
... Appellant
Versus
The Labour Court rep.by its Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Guntur
and others
... Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. S.M.Subhan
Counsel for respondent No.2 : Mr. D.Kasim Saheb
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Dt: 09.09.2021
(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Heard Mr. S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. D.Kasim Saheb, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 05.11.2018 in
W.P.No.22225 of 2002. The order reads as under:
"1. This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Certiorari calling
for the records relating to and connected with I.D.No.358 of 1990 on
the file of the 1st respondent-Labour Court and to modify award dated
29.9.1995 passed therein in respect of denial of wages for out of
employment period.
2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he is entitled for wages
from 29.9.1995 till he was reinstated into service i.e., on 17.8.2001 in
pursuance of the orders passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.358 of
1990.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ends of justice
would be met if this writ petition is disposed of directing respondents to
consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders.
4. This Court having considered the above submission is of the view
that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to
submit a representation to the respondents.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner
to submit a representation to the respondents within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, claiming wages
for the period from the date of the award in I.D.No.358 of 1990 viz.,
from 29.9.1995 till his reinstatement, i.e., 17.8.2001. On such
representation being received, the respondents shall consider the same
and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks thereafter.
No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed."
3. The appellant has retired in the meantime.
4. Mr. S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that
though the writ appeal was filed against the direction to the appellant to
submit a representation and in not considering the case on merits, he is
now instructed to submit that the appellant will be satisfied if the
respondents are directed to consider the representation within a
time-frame as may be fixed by this Court. It is further submitted that a
representation was submitted on 22.11.2018.
5. Mr. D.Kasim Saheb, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2,
submits that no representation was submitted. However, respondent
No.2 will have no objection in considering a representation, if any,
submitted by the appellant.
6. In response, Mr. S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the appellant,
submits that he will furnish a fresh copy of the representation dated
22.11.2018 to respondent No.2.
7. In view of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties,
without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Appeal is disposed of
permitting the appellant/petitioner to submit a copy of the representation
dated 22.11.2018 to the respondent No.2 within a period of two (2)
weeks. In the event of submitting such representation, the same shall be
considered by respondent No.2 within a period of six (6) weeks therefrom.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
Ivd
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL No.292 of 2021
(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Dt: 09.09.2021
Ivd
