I L NAIDU Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(APH)-2003-2-80
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on
February 18,2003
I.L.NAIDU
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
LONDON CORPORATION V. COX [REFERRED TO]R V. ELECTRICITY COMMISSIONERS [REFERREED TO]
STATE OF MADRAS V. C.P. SARATHY [REFERRED TO]
PARISIENNE BASKET SHOES PROPRIETARY LTD. V. WHYTE [REFERRED TO]
D.P. MAHESWARI V. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
PIPRAICH SUGAR MILLS LIMITED VS. PIPRAICH SUGAR MILLS MAZDOOR UNION [REFERRED TO]
HARIPRASAD SHIVSHANKER SHUKIA AND ANOTHOR BARSI LIGHT RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED VS. A D DIVELKAR:K N JOGLEKAR [REFERRED TO]
ANAKAPALLE CO OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LIMITED VS. WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
ADDANKI TIRUVENKATA THATA DESIKA CHARYULU SINCE DECEASED AND AFTER HIM HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN OF SUBONG TEA ESTATE VS. OUTGOING MANAGEMENT OF SUBONG TEA ESTATE ANA ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
MULCHANDANI ELECTRICAL AND RADIO INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
COOPER ENGINEERING LIMITED VS. P P MUNDHE [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. N SUNDARA MONEY [REFERRED TO]
DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. SHAMBHU NATH MUKHERJI [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH GUPTA VS. STATE BANK OF PATIALA [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB LAND DEVELOPMENT AND RECLAMATION CORPORATION LIMITED CHANDIGARH DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AMRAVATI REGIONAL MANAGER WEST ZONE NOW KNOWN AS KANPUR REGION BANK OF BARODA REGIONAL OFFICE LUCKNOW VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT CHANDIGARH:CHANDRASHEKHAR MARIBHAU DESHMUKH :SECRETARY U P BANK EMPLOYEES UNION C O BANK OF BARODA LATOUCHE ROAD KANPUR :LABOUR COURT RANCHI:NAMDEO:SECRETA [REFERRED TO]
U P SALES TAX SERVICE ASSOCIATION VS. TAXATION BAR ASSOCIATION AGRA [REFERRED TO]
VAZIR GLASS WORKS LIMITED VS. MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
NEDUNGADI BANK LIMITED VS. K P MADHAVANKUTTY [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY INDIAN TEA ASSOCIATION VS. AJIT KUMAR BARAT [REFERRED TO]
ORISSA TEXTILE AND STEEL LIMITED VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
S C PRASHAR VS. VASANTSEN DWARKADAS [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
RETIRED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. GOVT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2008-3-14] [REFERRED TO]JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)W.P.Nos. 25745 of 2001, 18437 of 2001 and 26576 of 2001 and Batch, constitute three classes of disputes between the management of M/s. Hindustan Zinc Limited, Visakhapatnam, a Government of India undertaking and the workmen of Lead Smelter Unit at Visakhapatnam, an undertaking of Hindustan Zinc Ltd.
(2.)Twenty employees of the Lead Smelter Unit have filed W. P. No. 25745 of 2001 challenging the order of the Government of India dated 22-12-2000 granting permission for closure of the Lead Plant at Visakhapatnam, under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') with effect from 24-1-2001, on various grounds. Contesting the discharge of workmen on the closure of the Lead Smelter Unit and disputing the claim of the management that redeployment of the workmen of the Lead Plant to other plants of the company was not possible, one of the recognised unions sought reference of the dispute under Sec. 10 of the Act, after conciliation in this regard failed. The Government of India by its order dated 2-5-2001 referred a specified dispute for adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. Challenging this order of the Government of India, the management-Hindustan Zinc Ltd., filed W.P.No. 18437 of 2001. Subsequent to dismissal of W.P.Nos. 375 and 520 of 2001 by the order of this court dt. 19-1-2001 (details of these writ petitions are being recorded in this judgment infra) and on the basis of the observations contained therein, some of the workmen of the closed unit approached the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam (for short 'the Tribunal') under Sec. 2-A(2) of the Act, for a declaration to treat their discharge with effect from 24-1-2001 as illegal retrenchment, for reinstatement to employment and other benefits. Against the entertainment by the Tribunal of these claims as IDs, the management-Hindustan Zinc Ltd., has filed W.P. 26576 of 2001 and Batch, seeking writs of Prohibition.
(3.)As interconnected factual and legal positions fell for consideration in these three classes of writ petitions, this court heard all the writ petitions together and is disposing them by this common Judgment.
(2.)Twenty employees of the Lead Smelter Unit have filed W. P. No. 25745 of 2001 challenging the order of the Government of India dated 22-12-2000 granting permission for closure of the Lead Plant at Visakhapatnam, under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') with effect from 24-1-2001, on various grounds. Contesting the discharge of workmen on the closure of the Lead Smelter Unit and disputing the claim of the management that redeployment of the workmen of the Lead Plant to other plants of the company was not possible, one of the recognised unions sought reference of the dispute under Sec. 10 of the Act, after conciliation in this regard failed. The Government of India by its order dated 2-5-2001 referred a specified dispute for adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. Challenging this order of the Government of India, the management-Hindustan Zinc Ltd., filed W.P.No. 18437 of 2001. Subsequent to dismissal of W.P.Nos. 375 and 520 of 2001 by the order of this court dt. 19-1-2001 (details of these writ petitions are being recorded in this judgment infra) and on the basis of the observations contained therein, some of the workmen of the closed unit approached the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam (for short 'the Tribunal') under Sec. 2-A(2) of the Act, for a declaration to treat their discharge with effect from 24-1-2001 as illegal retrenchment, for reinstatement to employment and other benefits. Against the entertainment by the Tribunal of these claims as IDs, the management-Hindustan Zinc Ltd., has filed W.P. 26576 of 2001 and Batch, seeking writs of Prohibition.
(3.)As interconnected factual and legal positions fell for consideration in these three classes of writ petitions, this court heard all the writ petitions together and is disposing them by this common Judgment.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.