K. Narasimha Swamy v. Vizianagaram District
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 26 Aug 2009
- Bench
- B PRAKASH RAO, G V SEETHAPATHI, G V SEETHAPATHY, B PRAKASA RAO
Provisions considered
- A.P. Shops and Establishments Act s. 48(3)
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ B. PRAKASA RAO, J. ___________________ G. V.SEETHAPATHY, J. 26th August 2009 Note: Issue C.C.within one week. B/o. Rns. ........REGISTRAR To 1 The Commissioner, Appeals, Office of the Commissioner of Land Administration A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Special…
Judgment
Cause title
1 Sri Vasavi Kalyana Mandapam, Gajapathinagaram, Vizianagaram District, Rep.by its Secretary K. Narasimha Swamy ..... APPELLANT
AND 1 Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vizianagaram. 2 Kolla Venkata Raju, S/o. Narayana Murthy, Hindu, aged about 35 years, R/o. Gajapathinagaram, Vizianagaram District. .....RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Appellant: MR.P.R.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. V. SEETHAPATHY
WRIT APPEAL NO.580 OF 2002
ORDER:
(per B.P.R.,J) The appellant is the unsuccessful writ petitioner, who filed the appeal inter alia seeking to assail the order of the learned single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No.25535 of 2001, dated 18.12.2001.
The appellant herein filed writ petition No. 25535 of 2001 seeking quashing of the award passed by the first respondent without giving an opportunity to him to participate in the trial. The learned single Judge has not acceded to the said plea and dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground that alternative remedy of appeal lies to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, as provided for under Section 48(3) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, and refused to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Having heard the learned counsel on either side and also on perusal of the material, it is to be seen that even though several points on merits are sought to be made out, including a request for providing an opportunity and since the order is an exparte one and in view of the factum of having such an alternative remedy where all these aspects can be gone into amply, we are refrained from interfering with the orders of the learned single Judge, leaving open to the appellant to file an appeal within a period of eight weeks from today and the same shall be disposed of on merits in accordance with law, after giving notice and opportunity to both sides.
Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ B. PRAKASA RAO, J. ___________________ G. V.SEETHAPATHY, J. 26th August 2009 Note: Issue C.C.within one week. B/o. Rns. ........REGISTRAR To 1 The Commissioner, Appeals, Office of the Commissioner of Land Administration A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling , Visakhapatnam. 3 2 CD copies
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
A.P. Shops and Establishments Act — s. 48(3); Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 26 Aug 2009. The bench was B PRAKASH RAO, G V SEETHAPATHI, G V SEETHAPATHY, B PRAKASA RAO.
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.