High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records from the Respondents herein by issuing a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by quashing the order dt. 6-6-2005 in M.P.No. 53 of 2003 in LD.No. 3 of 1984 on the file of the 'lst respondent in refusing to grant the relief as perverse, illegal, unjust, contrary to law, contrary to material on record and also in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.SRIDHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV The Court made the following: ORDER /r THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK qIRIT PETITION [0.17685 of 2OO7 ORDER: The present writ Petition is frled seeking tJle following reliel "...to catl for the records from the Reapondents herein by issuing a writ, Order of Direction more particul,arly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by quashing the order dt.6-6-2005 in M.P.No.S3 of 2O03 in I D No.3 of 1984 on the f e of ld respondent in refusing to grant the relief as pervr:rse, illegal, unjust, contrary to law contrary to material on record and also in violation of Articles 14 and 2l of Constitutioi"l of India I I I 2l Heard Sri P.Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing for respondent No. l, and learned Government Pleader for Irrigation appearing for respondent No.2. 3) Learned collnsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the l-abour Court on erroneous view of the matter and on pervcrse appreciation of the facts, has denied the relief sought by the petitione r. 'I'he Labour Court ought not have denied the relief sought by the petilioner on the ground of filing of M.P.No.3 of 1997, as withdrarval of said M.P. does not operate as res judicata to compute and decide the difference of amounts claimed in M.P.No.53 of 2003. The Labour Court failed to appreciate that as long as the Arvarcl dated 04.04.1985 is not implemented and is in force, the pctilioner is entitled to claim the monetary bencfits a PK, J wp_17685_2O07 under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, t947 . Therefore, ttre learned counsel prays this Court to allow the writ petition. 4l Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2 has submitted that the application of the petitioner before the l,abour Court was barred by limitation as the same was filed 15 years after the publication of the Award dated

04.04.1985. Earlier, the petitioner Iiled E.P.No.9/ 1996 and the same was closed by the Labour Court for non-furnishing of certain certificates. Thereafter, the petitioner kept silent nearly for two years and thereafter raised E.A. No.25/O1 to re-open E.P.No.9/996. However, the same was dismissed by the Labour Court on O5.O}.2OO2 granting liberty to the petitioner to lile appropriate application under Section 33-C(2) of the LD. Act. Lcarned Government Pleader further submitted that earlier the petitioner filed M.P.No.3/ 1997 under Section 33-C(2) of I.D. Act, ,: however, the same was dismissed as not pressed. Further, after passing of the Award dated 04.04.1985 by the Labour Court, the petitioner never filed any representation for reinstatement. Had the petitioner reinstated, he would have been paid the last drawn wages. But, he was employed somewhere else from the year 1982 and getting his pay/wages. Considering all the above facts, the '(' \ r.- - -3- PK, J wp_17685_20O7 Labour Court has rightly dismissed the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the material on record. 6) As can be seen from the impugned order dated 06.06.2003, the Labour Court has mainly rejected the cLaim of the petitioner on the ground of delay and also for non-filing of documentary evidence in support of his claim. 7l As regards delay, the Labour Court held that 11 years after the award dated 04.04.1985, the E.P. was frled. Further, even after closure of the Ii.P. also, the petitioner has not immediately filed the petition under Section33-C (2) of I.D. Act. The Labour Court clearly opined that though the provisions of Limitation Act are not applicablc to the delay and Iaches in making claim, the same can be a ground for disallowing the claim, duly relying on certain judgmerrts of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. t) In view of the above findings of tJle l,abour Court and after this length oi time, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. -4- PK, J wp_17685_2007 \ \\ r' 9) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. SD/- A.JAYASRE ASSISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER I To,

1. The Presiding Officer, Hon'ble lndustrial TribunalQurf Labour Court,

2. The Superintending Engineer, O and M Circle, N.S.L.C., Tekulapally, \ Warangal. Khammam District.

3. One CC to SRI P.SRIDHAR RAO, Advocate. [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR IRRIGATION AND CAD, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies. BSK PSK .\ tt.W,, \1 HIGH COURT DATED:2410712025 ORDER WP.No.17685 of 2007 1HES !_)(J t 3 1 ,lAN 2fl7fi 7 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS la..Y '2