IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY THIS THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.21649 of 1999 & 5657 of 2001
WP.No.21649 of 1999 Between:
A.G.A.Publications Limited, Rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director, Hyderabad . PETITIONER And The Authority under Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 and Dy.Commissioner Of Labour, Eluru, West Godavari District and another . RESPONDENTS WP.No.5657 of 2001 Between:
A.G.A.Publications Limited, Vaartha Daily Newspaper, Rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director, Hyderabad . PETITIONER And The Authority under Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 and Regional Joint Commissioner of Labour, Multi Zone-I, Visakhapatnam and 10 others . RESPONDENTS
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.21649 of 1999 & 5657 of 2001
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the cases. Consistently, there is no representation on behalf of respondents.
Since the common issue arises for consideration in both the writ petitions, they are disposed of by this common order.
W.P.No.21649/1999 is filed to quash the orders passed by the 1st respondent in W.J.M.P.No.1/98 and W.J.No.1/98 dated 11.05.1999 and 23.08.1999; whereas W.P.No.5657/2001 is filed to set aside the order passed by the 1st respondent in W.J.Case Nos.3 to 10 of 2000, dated 17.02.2001.
In W.P.No.21649/1999, it is submitted by the petitioner that the 1st respondent has passed an ex parte order against the petitioner company and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an application on 27.10.1998 to set aside the ex parte order. The 2nd respondent also filed counter in the said application. It seems that the 1st respondent dismissed the application on the ground that the person who filed the application has no authority to file the same. As to this, the contention of the petitioner is that the order is perverse and not a speaking order and is passed considering the rival contentions of the parties. Therefore, the order is sought to be set aside.
While the said writ petition was pending, the petitioner filed W.P.No.5657/2001 alleging that in spite of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.2638/2001 on 19.02.2001 directing the 1st respondent not to take up any of the cases filed by the petitioner company for adjudication, the 1st respondent who had full knowledge of the order, passed orders on 17.02.2001 with an anti-date.
Before the learned single Judge in W.P.No.2638/2001 serious allegations have been made against the 1st respondent to the effect that the 1st respondent had been vindictively passing orders against the petitioner. On being satisfied with the submissions made by the petitioner, the learned single Judge passed order directing the 1st respondent not to dispose of any of the cases of the petitioner company. Therefore, the W.P.No.5657/2001 is filed making allegations against the 1st respondent that it passed the order against the petitioner company with anti-date to circumvent the orders passed by the learned single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition.
In view of the orders passed in the earlier writ petition and also having regard to the allegations made in the present writ petitions, this Court is of the considered view that the orders passed by the 1st respondent are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the orders passed by the 1st respondent in W.J.M.P.No.1/98 and W.J.No.1/98 dated 11.05.1999 and 23.08.1999, and in W.J.Case Nos.3 to 10 of 2000 dated 17.02.2001 are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the 1st respondent-the Authority under Working of Journalists & other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955 to pass orders on merits afresh, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties, within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
These two Writ Petitions are accordingly disposes of. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
R.KANTHA RAO,J
Date: 29.10.2014 Dsr