APHC010285192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESiH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY^- TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO lA No.2 OF 2025 IN/AND WRIT APPEAL NO: 694 OF 2025 lA No.2 OF 2025.-^ Between; The Chairman and Managing Director, A.P. Transmission Corporation Limited, Presently through successor company - A.P.Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, Renigunta Road, Tirupati, Chittoor Dist., Rep. by its Superintending Engineer (Operations) Mr. Y. Ramaswamy Naidu. The Chief Engineer, A.P. Transmission Corporation Limited, Tirupathi, Presently Successor Company, A.P. Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Tirupati. The Superintending Engineer, A.P. Transmission Corporation Ltd. Presently, known as Superintending Engineer A.P. Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Tirupati 1. 2. 3. ...APPELLANTS AND V, 1. The Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, Rep. by its presiding officer. 2. 4ri K. Ramesh Babu, S/o Late K. Krishna Mandadi, Ex-employee, D. No.27-366, Janakarapalle, Chitoor ...RESPONDENTS^^ Petition under Section isfCPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 2382 days in filing the present Writ Appeal.- WRIT APPEAL NO: 694 OF 2025-- Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order 06.11.2018 in W.P. No.2^591 of 2006 on the file of High Court- lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the award dated 14.07.2006 in ID No.315 of 2000 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Anantapur. Counsel for the Petitioners; SRI KALEPU YASHWANTH Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2:M. PITCHAIAH The Court made the following: JUDGMENT APHC010285192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3526] TUESDAY. THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO I.A. No.2 of 2025 IN/AND WRIT APPEAL No.694 of 2025 Between: 1.The Chairman and Managing Director, A.P. Transmission Corporation Limited, Presently through Successor Company-A.P. Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, Renigunta Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District, Rep. by its Superintending Engineer (Operations) Mr.Y.Ramaswamy Naidu, and others. ...Appellants AND 1.The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Anantapur, Rep. by its Presiding Officer. 2.Sri K.Ramesh Babu, S/o.Late K.Krishna Mandadi, Ex-Employee, D.No.27-366, Janakarapalle, Chittoor ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellants Counsel for respondent Counsel for 2"'* respondent : Mr.Kalepu Yashwanth The G.P. for Labour Mr.M.Pitchaiah This Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: {per NJS,J) Heard Mr.G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/appellants through online. He submits that I.A. No.2 of 2025 is filed seeking to condone the delay of 2382 days in preferring the Writ Appeal against the order dated 06.11.2018 dismissing • •'v 2 Writ Petition No.23591 of 2006 filed by the petitioners/appellants. The said writ petition was filed questioning the Award dated 14.7.2006 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur in I.D. No.315 of 2000. 2. In the affidavit filed in support I.A. No.2 of 2025, it is inter alia stated that the representation dated 07.12.2018 made by the respondent No.2 was forwarded to the higher authorities and the writ petitioners/appellants received instructions dated 11.1.2019 according permission for filing of appeal against the orders dated 06.11.2018 passed in W.P.No.23591 of 2006. It is also stated that in the light of the instructions, the petitioners/ appellants had taken steps to file an appeal, however the same could not be filed on account of changes and the appointment of new Standing Counsel for A.P.S.P.D.C.L. Except the said reasons, nothing is stated nor any details were stated as to when the new Standing Counsel for A.P.S.P.D.C.L., was appointed and why the appeal could not be filed immediately at least after appointment of new Standing Counsel. The affidavit is vague and though the day-to-day delay is not explained, the steps taken by the petitioners should at least give an impression that there is no negligence, which is lacking in the present case. Be that as it may. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit, opposed the application seeking condonation of the delay in preferring the appeal. He submits that the reason stated in the affidavit seeking condonation of the delay more particularly on the premise that due to changes and appointment of new Standing Counsel the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation, cannot be appreciated. Drawing the attention of this Court to the case status details in Calendar Case No.220 of 2019 filed by the 3 respondent No.2 for non-implementation of the orders of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.23591 of 2006, he submits that the Corporation and its officials are being represented by the Standing Counsel appointed in the year 2019 itself and in fact on 21.4.2025 before the Contempt Court, the learned Standing Counsel sought two weeks’ time for implementing the orders passed in W.P. No.23591 of 2006, that thereafter the present appeal was preferred on 16.6.2025 suppressing the facts. who was 4. The reason for the delay in preferring the appeal sought to be explained is not plausible. As it is evident from the material placed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, the A.P.S.P.D.C. L., is having a regular Standing Counsel right from 2019 onwards, pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, in the Contempt Proceedings, two weeks time Further, as rightly was sought on 21.4.2025 to The present affidavit was implement the orders in the Writ Petition, signed on 15.6.2025 and nothing is stated about the said aspects, which cannot be appreciated. 5. Considering the submissions made and available on record, this Court perusing the material no ground to condone the huge delay of 2,382 days (more than 614 years) in preferring the appeal. Hence, I.A. No.2 of 2025 is dismissed. Consequently, Writ Appeal No.694 rejected. Miscellaneous petitions pending, including I.A. No.1 of 2025 shall stand rejected. see of 2025 is Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. One CC to Sri Kalepu Yashwanth, Advocate [OPUC]"" 2. One CC to Sri M. Pitchaiah, Advocate [OPUC]^ 3. Two CCS to GP for Labour, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT^ 4. Two CD Copies. J HIGH COURT DATED:15/07/2025 JUDGMENT lA No.2 of 2025 In/and WA No. 694 OF 2025 S 2 8 JUL 2025 m fo/i DISMISSING THE lA No.2 of 2025 & REJECTING THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS