The High Court · 2007
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA.' NN Between: Mrs. Preeti Paruchuri, Wo. Hari Prasad, R/o. { 3Q4r -Taurus Apartment, leela Nagai Colony, Ameerpet' Hyderabad -16' Green View D,.
Hon'ble Labour Court-|, Chandra Vihar Buildings, Rep' by its Presiding Officer, Hyderabad.
M/s. Trikkal Advertisement (P) Limited, Plot No. 27,Ulll9q!oly, road No'3' -' tilnjara ftitis, Hyderabad, Fiep. by its Director Mr. K' Sunil Babu' ...PETITIONER .RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue notice, call for records and declare and order that the award made t.D.No.lo of 2003 dated 15th December 2006, which was directed to the published on the notice board of the Hon'ble Labour court through G.O. Rt.No.570 dated 09-03-2007 is not legal and not valid and is arbitrary and unjust in so far as denying the back wages and consequently direct the 2d respondent management to pay full back wages till the date of reinstatement by issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction as the Honble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and to grant such other relief or reliefs to which the Petitioner is entitled to and to allow the Writ Petition with costs otherwise the Petitioner will be put to great loss and hardship. TO 1 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 pleased to dispense with the filing of original Award dt. 1s-12-2oo6 made in lD No. 10/2003 on the file of R1 Counset forthe Petitioner: SR! D. RAVISHANKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.l: Gp FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI G. RAVI MOHAN The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE NAITIAVARAPU RA"IESHUIAR RAO WRIT PETITION No'1531 OF 2OO8 ORDER: I,earnedcounselappearingfortherespondentssubmittedthat nothing survives in this writ petition'
2. In view of the above .submission, However, libertyisgrantedtothepetitionertoapproachthisCourt afresh, if the cause survives in the writ petition' There shall be no the Writ Petition is closed' order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous apptications pending' if any' in this ' Writ Petition, shall stand closed SD'-M. JAWAHAR REDDY ISTANT REG / /TTRUE COPY/' SECTION OFFICER / To, t?*:33i%'33,"Ti"i;:xl-ft ',St6,fl0':"'"'fl: "t?#31'eransana'at ; 3#"58il t?uJl**i Mohan' Advocate toPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies T LS \pJ HIGH COURT DATED:1210812025 ORDER WP.No.1531 of 2008 1 HES n llflu itj15 * CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS N
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.