High Court · 2025

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not implementing the proceedings No.HUDA/ACCTSA/VAS/2/2006 dated 1 8.1 0.2006 issued by the 1st respondent is iilegar, arbitrary, unjust, viorating the principres of Article 21 of the Gonstitution of lndia and consequenfly direct the respondents to implement the above proceedings. r.A. NO: 1 0F 200 MP. NO:3lo90 oF 2006) Petition under Section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents particularly the 1st respondent to implement the proceed ings No.HUDA/ACCTSMAS/2/2006 dated 1 8. 1 0.20C16 forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.VINOD KUMAR (Nor eRESEN T) Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI V.NARASIMHA r3,CUD, SC FOR HUDA Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No ,26545 0F 2006 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed, under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: . "..to r'ssue an appropiate Writ, Order or direction more parlicularlg one in the nature of Wit oI Mandamus decloing the action oI the respondents in not implementing the proceed.ings No.HUDA/ACCTS/ WAS/ r/ 2006, dated 18.10.2006 issued. bg the l.t respondent is illegat, (trbitrarlJ, uryust, uiolating the principles of Atticle 21 of the constitutton of lr.dia and conscquentlg direlt th.e respondeats to implement the abo\e proceediags, and pass...';

2. In spite of service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner Union.

3. l.earned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.l and 2 filed the counter stating as follows "In replg to para-7, it is submitted that the contention of the petitioner that he has not filed anA LLit or xtit or any other proceedings before ang other court of laLu or any other forum utith regard to the same relief sought for is not correct. Another Union of Hgderabad {Jrban Deueloprncrtt AuthoritA Contract Workers (Regd-.No.B-2775) filed a Wnt petition No.3623/ 2OO6 in the Hon'ble High Court, Hgrlerabad. Seeking similar relief. The names of the labour inclucled .in the lists attached to th.e aJfidauits, apparentlg synchroni.z.es. pior to that this union has also filed their petitions beforc the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle II, Si T.Anjatah Bhauan, RTC 'x' Road, Hyderabad on the samc issue. The Hon'ble High Court in its orders in W.p.No.3623/ 2OO6, datcd 13-10 2006 issued directions to the 1st responclent thercin 2 PK,J Wp-2(,545 2006 t.e., the Assistanf Commissioner of labour, Hyrlerabad to issue notice to the petitioner and 2"a respondent plI)DA) and to conduct the conciliation process and. to submit u report to the gouernment in lerms of Section- 12 of Industr,rlt Dispute Act tuithin a peiod of 3 months from ttLe date o.1' ,'ccerpt of copy of the orders of the Hon'ble Cour7. 'lhc Deputg Commissioncr ol l,abour (Tutin Cities) uho i-s the ttnciliation offtcer has submitted his conciliation report to th': Pincipal Secretar4, Labour, Emplogment and Training in lis Lctter No.Cl/1848/20O6 dated 29-O3-2OO7 stating that the conciliatton procccdings ended in foilure under section 12(4) of the Indu strial Disputes Act,1947. Hon'ble, (thairman Inrlustria I 'l'ribu nal II, ITgderabad uide I.D.No.5 of 2O07 dated 3'd March, 2OO8 passed an au.tard holding that t,tr court ls not inclirr ed to grent any relief in their fouour(pettti'trLers) and petitione,s are not antitled to the relief claimed b!/ ticm."

4. Petitioner Union has liled writ petition befor,r this Court uide W-P.No.3623 of 2006 and the relevant portion of llLt: order rezrds as follows: "The first petltioner herein is registered. untrtn of the contracl tuorkers operating in the second rc:;pondent organisation It is statdd that the members of llL( l)etitioner union arc anqctqcd as contract/ casual ulorkers anc, ctltending to tltr: gardcninq and other maintenance utork Lt uaious parks and oJJices. Thc petitioner union alleges tha, presentlA there are no contractors and the members of thc ltetitioner union arc still continuing and consolidated salartr.:: tLrc bcing paid to th-ern through second respondent. TlLe petiti)r .cr union requeste.rT lltc second respondent organization to n,xtend the beneJits like prourdant fund, ESI and minimum u./arics. Since, no octton uas token by the second respotl(.'?nt, they 3 PK,J wp 26545 2006 approached- ttrc first respondent-Assistont Commissioner of lnbour . The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, on 25.11.2005 made an endorsement closing the joint meeting and. aduising the management and representotiues of the union to settle the issues a, their leuel. Hence, the present tDit petition. " \ I \

5. The said writ petition was disposed of on I 3. lO _2006 directing the first respondent to issue notices to the petitioner Union and second respondent-HUDA and conduct the conciliation proceedings and to submit a report to the Government in terms of Section 12 of Industrial Disputes Act, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt o[ copy of the order. In pursuant to the same, the petitioner Union approached the Conciliation Officer i.e. the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, wherein he passed an award aide I.D.No.S of 2OO7, dated O3.03.2OO8 holding that the Court is not inclined to grant any relief in their favour and the petitioner Union is not entitled to the relief claimed by them. The same is not questioned by the petitioner Union by way of reply or rejoinder.

6. Therefore, it appears that I.D.No.S of 2OOZ, dated O3.03.2OO8 has become hnal. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 4 PKJ wp 26545- 2006 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shrrll stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs //TRUE COPY// ^,,,,i?.t.ltffi'-T To,

1. One CC to SRt P.V|NOD KUMAR, Advocate IOPUCI 2. One CC to SRt V.NARASTMHA GOUD, SC FOR HUDA ()pUCl 3. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the rltate of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies BSR LS I HIGH COURT DATED:2210712025 ORDER WP.No.26545 of 2006 I ? i iC, ;it\ t :.-.-,---. ,---/ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS