Misc Petition No. 38 of 2005 · High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.SRIKANTH REDDY, SC FOR TGIIC Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI K.S.V.SUBBA RAO Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA N-{IITHIK \[RIT PETITION No.l3O46 OF 2-t.ro6 ORDER: This Wr;t Petition is iilccl under Artir.l 226 ol' the Constilution ol lnclia seeking the f,rllowing rclici: "...lo i-ssrrc art appropiate wril, order or directrcn nr, t ltarlictiarlg ote in the trclure of unt of Cerliorai, to calL for the re_. t, s relotttg to and cottrr<tct<,d with the order dated 2.5.2006 passed i i rrsc. pclllio,r No.38 of )O()5 on the ftle of the 2"d Respondent ond q it .tL tlc sa,rte attd przss sttt'h other order or orders es this Hon'ble Ct.t, , nutq (leenr ,fit and propet iu IlTe ciralntstences of ttle case..." 2 The facts o[ the casc are that rcspondent N,. . an employee ol petitio ner-Cr rrporatior.r, filed MiscellancoLls I) rrron r,Jo.38 ol 2OO5 before respondent No.2/Labour Court-[ secl. I ] computation of his salary on the basis of thc Revised Pay Si:.r les 1<178, i.e ., Rs.325-5OO .)n par u,ith the other similzrrly pl ld cmplor.,ees, nhich u,as allowed uide order dated 02.05.200(r. dirl)ctin€l pe ti tioner-Corpo ration to re-fix thc salary of rcsl;r, rdcnt No.1 as per the Revised Pay Scale-1978 at the scalc of Rs.t.?5-500 and to pay the arrears within two months from the datc r,{ lrc said order, failing u,hich, rr:spondent No.1 was entitlcd to r ( { , )\/cr the same with interest (u: 9olt from the date o[ the saicl ord< Aggrieved by the said ordcr, the petitioner-Corporation filed tlr. prescnt Writ Petition. 2 P(,.' \\'p_13046 2006

3. Heard Sri M.Srikanth Rcddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, appearing for the petitioner; Sri K.S.V.Subba Rao, learned counscl appearing for respondent No.1; learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing for respondent No 2; and lcarned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning appcaring for respondent No 3

4. Learned Standing Counsel lor thc pelitioner submits that the petitioner-Corporation is a body governed by the provisions of [he Companies Act, i956 and respondcnt No. 1 lvas appointed as a Messenger in the petitioncr'Corporation on 29- 10 1976 It is vehemently contended that the application liled by respondenl No.1 invoking the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not maintainable as it was filcd after a lapse ol more than 29 ycars' Horvever, without taking that aspect into consideration, the Labour Court has mechanically entcrtained and allou'ed the petition filed by respondent No.1. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to allow the present Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned order.

5. Per contra,learned counsel for respondcnt No 1 submits that the similarly situated employ'ees of the pe ti tioner-Corporation approached this Court by filing W P No 8665 of 1995 and batch' which were allowed by this CourL, uide common order dated / 3 PI(,J wr) 13016 2000

15.O9.1.999, <lrrecting the petitioner-Corporatior r o fix the pay anomaly. Further, in similar circumstances, this ( ourt dismissed W.P.No.13O69 ol 2O06, by order dated 20.06.2().: i. holding that the unofhciirl respondents therein (who were trr employees of petiLioner-C()rpcrat ion) arc also entitlcd i" re bcnefit of G.O.(P).No.2:35 dated 17.O9.1979 on par witl- rrh<:r similarly sr[uated emltloyees. Pursuant to Lhe said ordcr.,. Lhe petitioncr- Corporalion hi,.d also exLended the benelits to tlr )se employccs. Hou'evcr, i[ is conLended that petitioner-Corpol i] I ion dcnied the clairn of respondcnt No.1 only on the ground tlr he \\'as not a party to the si.tid Writ Petition. As such, the Lalrr .rr Court, aftcr considering thc contentions of the respective par ics and material cvide nce on rt cord, has rightly allowed the afr,r. saici M.p. uirle order dated O.1.05.2006. Therelbre, learned cc rrrsel prays rhis Courl to disrniss the Writ Petition.

6. Tl'ris Cotrrt has taken note of submissions r :rde by lezrrncd counscl for tlre respective parties and perus r thc material availablc on rcc:ord.

7. Admrttedly, respondent No.l had been lorking as a Messenger ir-r the petitioner-Corporation since 19;( . Wl-rilc so, the Government ol Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.( ,) No.235 dated 17.O9.1975 e::tending Rcvised pay Scalcs, 1,,, ,B, to all the 4 PK,J Wp 13046 2006 Government employees irrespective of cadres and the said G'O' was duly adopted by the petitioner-Corporation As seen from the record, in compliance with the orders of this Court in W P No'8665 of1995andbatchdated16.09.1999,thepetitioner-Corporation has extended the benefits of the aforesaid G O in favour of thc petitioners therein who are similarly situated as the petitioncr herein.Insuchcircumstances,thepctitioner-Corporationought not to have denied the claim of respondent No' l Hencc' this Court is of the view that respondent No 1 is also entitlcd to the bcnefit o[ G.O (P) No.235 dated i7.09 1979 on par r'"'ith other similarll' such, -this Court does not find an1' situated emPloYees. As infirmity in the imPugned order datcd 02.05.2006, Passed bY respondent No.2/Labour Thcreforc, thc present Writ Petition is liabte to be dismisscd Court-1, warranting interference' 8 Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed' Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any' shall stand closed Thcre shall be no order as to costs //TRUE COPY// JAWAHAR REDDY TANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 One CC to SRI K.S.V.SUBBA RAO, Advocate [OPU One CC to SRI M.SRIKANTH REDDY, SC FOR TGIIC [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CCs to GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI Two CD Copies 5 BSR PVL W -1 HIGH COURT DATED:2210712025 ! -.-'.a' (-\ . lf ti' .ii i., t a'!'i'tt{' \l ORDER WP.No.13046 of 2006 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS @n ]{ p. ^