't - Maturi Venkata Subba Rao College Non-teaching Staff Union v. 1. The Labour Court-ll, Hyderabad

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to continue the 2nd petitioner in service as Office Assistant in the Administrative Department of the College by paying salary in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 153 dated 16-05-1994, pendin(l disposal of the writ petition. |.A.NO:1 OF 2019 Between The Management, Rep. by its Principal, M.V.S.R Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Engineering Oollege, Nadergul, .....PETITIO NERYRESPONDENT

1. I/aturi Venkata Subba Rao College Non{eaching Staff Union, (Regd No.2518), Nadergul, Saro_omagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. 5y its General Secretary, C. Bhagat Simha.

2. Ms. B. Anju Rao, D/o.Late B. Ramachander Rao,, cUo. 11-13-1151N1, Kothapet, Backside Asthalakshmi Temple, Balaji trlagar, Hyderabad - 500035

3. The Labour Court-ll, Hyderabad, Rep. by its presiding Officer, Chandravihar Complex, M. J. Road, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDE:NTS/PETITIONERS .....tlESPONDENT No.1 Petition Under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court ray be pleased to vacate the interim order dated:'l 1-07-2016 in W.p.M.p. N o.2731812016 in W.P.No.222661201 6, consequently dismiss the W.p.No.22Z66t 201 6. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Gp FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI HARENDER PRASAD The Court made the following ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.2225 of 2016 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed challenging the Award passed by the 1't respondent in I.D. No.123 of 2012, dated 06.04.2OL5, and published in G.O.Rt.No.227, dated 20.05.2015. The petitioners have sought to set aside the said award as illegal and unsustainable and prayed for a direction to regularise the services of the 2nd petitioner and grant her the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.153 dated 16.05.1994.

2. The case of the petitioner is that 2nd petitioner claims to be working as an Office Assistant in the Administrative wing of respondent No.2 since 01.08.2007 on an adhoc basis. It is submitted that over the years, she was cohtinued in service with revised consolidated salaries, the latest being Rs.10,760/- per month, but was not granted regularisation or other employment benefits. 3. It is further submitted that the union raised a dispute before the Labour Department regarding regularisation and application of G.O.Ms.No.153 for 11 employees, including the 2nd petitioner. The matter was I referred to the Labour Court, which adjudicated the dispute in I.D.No.123 of 20L2. The Lerbour Court, however, dismissed the dispute mainly on the ground that the claim statement was not signed by an authorised representative of the union and that Sri Bhagath Simha was not competent to represent the union ar: the time of filing the ID.

4. It is also submitted that the petitioners challenge this finding and argue that the Labour Co.rrt erred in holding that Sri Bhagath Simha lacked authorisation They also contend that on merits, the Labour Court failed to appreciate the admissions made by MW1 (the Principal of the College) regarding the eligibility of thc, concerned employees for regularisation, and that the denial of benefits was discriminatory.

5. On the other hand, the 2nd respondrlnt filed a detailed counter affidavit raising several preliminary objections, including that the writ petiti,:n is not maintainable due to misjoinder and non-joinderr of proper parties, since Matrusri Institute of Post Gradui:te Studies was not made a party. It was further submitted that the 2"d respondent is a private unaided educational institution and therefore not amenable to writ jurisdiction for service matters of this nature, which are contractual and non-statutory in nature. 6. It was also submitted that the Labour Court rightly held that Sri Bhagath Simha, not being in service and lacking valid authorisation, could not have maintained the dispute. The znd respondent contends that the services of other similarly situated persons were considered for regularisation only after they made individual representations and were not part of the dispute raised improperly by the union.

7. It is further submitted that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Tnd petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition, culminating in a decision to dismiss her from service. The said decision was approved by the Commissioner for Technical Education on 2L.02.2019. The interim order passed by this Court dated 11.07.2016 has prevented the 2nd respondent from giving effect to the dismissal.

8. This Court, having considered the pleadings and material on record, is of the view that the Labour Court's finding on the issue of maintainability of ther dispute due to lack of valid authorisation is neither [)erverse nor without basis. In the absence of a properly authorised representative, the dispute could not have been validly initiated.

9. Further, the 2nd petitioner's claim for rilgularisation and application of G.O.Ms.No.153 cannot be granted tn writ jurisdiction, especially when she was appointed on an adhoc basis in a private unaided institutic,n and there exists no statutory provision granting her such right. The question of regularisation must be considered by the Management in accordance with their interrral policies, subject to law, and not by way of judicial direction in the present circumstances.

10. In view of the above facts and circumstarnces of the case, this Court does not find any error in the award of the Labour Court dated 06.04.2015and the vrrit petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Interim crder dated

17.07.20t6 in W,P,M.P.No.27378 of 20t6 stands vacated. No costs. miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL D PUry REGISTRA ECTION OFFICER of Telangana at

1. Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR, High Court for the S Hyderabad. [OUTI

2. One CC to SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to SRI HARENDER PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies To SA GJP s I HE S f,i r6: JR o (-) 2 7 lul'i 2925 ( o €S;, ,l rc -..i-) I I HIGH COURT DATED:2710212025 \ ORDER WP.No.22266 of 2016 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. %,