K.Suryanarayana Reddy v. (Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972)
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 16, 21, 226
Judgment
Cause title
PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.21399 of 2005 Between: K.Suryanarayana Reddy, S/o.Koti Reddy, Nellore Cooperative Urban bank Ltd., R/o.Nellore ..... PETITIONER
AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner of labour, Guntur (Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972) 2 The Assistant Commissioner of labour, Nellore. (The Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972). 3 The Nellore Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Rep by its President, Gandhinagar, Nellore. ....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a direction, order or writ, more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari a). Declaring the action of the respondents herein in not considering the representation dt.29/12/2003 herein the petitioner has sought for compassionate appointment as arbitrary, illegal and unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India b). Consequently direct the Respondents to consider and appoint to any suitable post on compassionate grounds and pass such other and further order or orders. the petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.SIVA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.21399 of 2005
ORAL ORDER:
Mr. Siva, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the Writ Petition. Permission is accorded. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs. Office to furnish CC by Tomorrow (B.O.) 03-3-2008
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.