APSRTC v. P.Nageswara Rao
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI by calling for the records in I.D.No.470 of 1995 dt.28.1.1999 published in G.O.Rt.No.539 dt. 27.3.1999 on the file of the Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Visakhapatnam herein and quash the order. Counsel for the Petitioner:KUM B.G.UMADEVI, STANDING COUNSEL FOR APSRTC Counsel for the Respondent : MR.CHALLARI NAGESWARA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER Heard Kum.B.G.Umadevi, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. The main question which involved is as to whether the respondent who has laid a claim by way of reference under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was a contract labour. After the reference, the Labour Court on consideration of the evidence available on record, held that there is a relationship of employer and employee. In the similar circumstances, this Court has already dismissed similar Writ Petition in W.P.No.24326 of 1999 as per the order dated 16-03-2005. Following the same and especially in view of the finding of fact arrived, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. --------------- 17-03-2005. Hsd Asst. Registrar
1.2 CD copies
The Executive Engineer, APSRTC, Visakhapatnam
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.