Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Commissioner vs Ap Municipal Workers Union Aituc on 19 September, 2024
APHC010405312024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3470]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT APPEAL NO: 778/2024
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to present
this Memorandum of Writ Appeal against the interim order granted in
W.P. No. 3628 of 2021, dated. 08.05.2023 passed by the Learned
Single Judge
Between:
The Municipal Commissioner,
Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation,
Visakhapatnam & Another .... Appellants
And
Ravi Kumar & Others ..... Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant (s) :
1. Additional Advocate General
Counsel for the Respondent (s) :
1. Y. Surya Prasad
2
WRIT APPEAL NO: 775 of 2024
The Municipal Commissioner,
Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation,
Visakhapatnam & Another .... Appellants
And
A.P. Municipal Workers Union, AITUC
& Others ..... Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant (s) :
1. Additional Advocate General
Counsel for the Respondent (s) :
1. Y. Surya Prasad
WRIT APPEAL NO: 776 of 2024
The Municipal Commissioner,
Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation,
Visakhapatnam & Another .... Appellants
And
A.P. Municipal Workers Union, AITUC
& Others ..... Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant (s) :
1. Additional Advocate General
Counsel for the Respondent (s) :
1. Y. Surya Prasad
3
WRIT APPEAL NO: 777 of 2024
The Municipal Commissioner,
Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation,
Visakhapatnam & Another ....
Appellants
And
A.P. Municipal Workers Union, AITUC
& Others .....
Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant (s) :
1. Additional Advocate General
Counsel for the Respondent (s) :
1. Y. Surya Prasad
WRIT APPEAL NO: 779 of 2024
The Municipal Commissioner,
Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation,
Visakhapatnam & Another ....
Appellants
And
A.P. Municipal Workers Union, AITUC
& Others .....
Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant (s) :
1. Additional Advocate General
Counsel for the Respondent (s) :
1. Y. Surya Prasad
4
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT APPEAL NOs.778 of 2024, 775 of 2024, 776 of 2024,
777 of 2024 & 779 of 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)
1. Heard the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for
the appellants and Sri Y. Surya Prasad, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents.
2. The Writ Appeal No.778 of 2024 has been filed by the
appellants (the respondents in the Writ Petition No.3628 of 2021),
challenging the interim order dated 08.05.2023 passed by the
learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition.
3. The interim order dated 08.05.2023 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.No.3628 of 2021 reads as under:-
"Learned counsel for the respondents sought time on the ground
that they want to engage a Senior Advocate in the present case. That is not
a ground to reject interim order.
This Court has already granted interim direction in W.P.No.18846
of 2018 dated 11.06.2018 by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others [(2017)
1 SCC 148] directed the respondents therein to apply the minimum time
scale to the employee therein. Hence, there shall be a direction to the
respondents herein to apply/pay the minimum time scale."
4. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the
Counter Affidavit was already filed in the Writ Petition, but time was
granted to file Counter Affidavit. The same was not taken into
consideration.
5. He further submits that the impugned interim order has been
passed based on an interim order dated 11.06.2018 passed in
W.P.No.18846 of 2018, which was granted following the Judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit
Singh and others [(2017) 1 SCC 148], but in W.P.No.18846 of
2018 an application for vacation of stay had already been filed,
which is still pending. Consequently, based on that interim order,
the present impugned interim order could not be passed.
6. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the
Judgment in Jagjit Singh (supra) shall not apply to the facts of the
present case, in which the writ petitioners are the outsourcing
employees. He submits that considering Jagjit Singh (supra)
G.O.Ms.No.142, dt.27.08.2018 was issued, but not for the
outsourcing employees. He submits that in W.A.No.552 of 2021,
which was filed against the final order passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.25343 of 2021, dated 16.04.2021 with respect to
the outsourcing employees, the Division Bench of this Court vide
interim order, has provided only for payment of the minimum wages.
7. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that in
the Writ Petition the appellants have already filed application for
vacation of the interim order with additional counter affidavit, and
the same is pending, but The writ petitioners, for the alleged
disobedience of the impugned interim order, have filed contempt
petitions which are listed.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents Sri Y. Surya Prasad
submits that the controversy is still pending in the main Writ Petition.
Only interim order has been passed. The appellants have already
filed counter affidavit and the additional Counter Affidavit along with
the application for vacation of interim order. He further submits that
Jagjit Singh (supra) shall apply to the employees of the present
case as well, being covered in 'temporary employees' as in para 60
of Jagjit Singh (supra). The writ petitioners are entitled for grant of
minimum time scale. The learned counsel for the respondents
further submits that the order in W.A.No.552 of 2021 is not
applicable to the facts of the present case.
9. Having considered the aforesaid submissions, we are of the
view that i) The writ appellants were represented through counsel
and they sought adjournment on the ground which was found not
satisfactory. They could have brought to the notice of the learned
Single Judge that Counter Affidavit had already been filed and
ought to have advanced the arguments; ii) Mere pendency of
application for vacation of interim order in W.P.No.18846 of 2018
cannot be a ground to challenge the impugned interim order or not
to extend the same benefit, particularly when, before us, it has not
been submitted that the controversy involved in the said Writ
Petition is not the same as in W.P.No.3628 of 2021.
10. So far as, the applicability of Jagjit Singh (supra) or the
interim order in W.A.No.552 of 2021, or the G.O.Ms.No.142,
dt.27.08.2018 to the facts in W.P.No.3628 of 2021 is concerned, the
main matter is pending before the learned Single Judge. Any
observation on the merit of the aforesaid submissions, at this stage,
would certainly affect the decision of the Writ Petition. We are not
inclined to hold parallel enquiry. The writ appellants have already
filed Counter Affidavit, and additional Counter Affidavit as stated
with application for vacation of interim order. They may pursue that
remedy against the order under writ appeal.
11. The Writ Appeal No.778 of 2024 is dismissed, however,
leaving it open to the writ appellants to pursue their stay vacate
petition filed in the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge.
12. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that some
date may be fixed for advancing arguments in the Writ Petitions. He
further submits that the batch of Writ Petitions, pertain to different
years and consequently, before different roster Benches. It is for the
learned counsel for the writ appellants to make request for listing,
before the appropriate Benches having roster or to take such steps
as may be open to him for listing/fixing of dates in the writ petitions.
13. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending
applications, if any, shall stand closed.
14. Learned counsels for both the sides, in other connected writ
appeals submits that in those appeals, the same facts and same
points are involved. Consequently, this Judgment shall also govern
the Writ Appeal Nos.775 of 2024, 776 of 2024, 777 of 2024 &
779 of 2024.
____________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
__________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 19.09.2024
IS
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT APPEAL NOs.778 of 2024, 775 of 2024, 776 of 2024,
777 of 2024 and 779 of 2024
Date: 19.09.2024
IS
