USHODAYA PUBLICATIONS,EENADU COMPLEX,HYD v. LABOUR COURT,GUNTUR&ANR
WP/22761/2000 · 2026-03-11
Challa Gunaranjan
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 24729 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 24729 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010515542000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NOs: 22761 & 22822 of 2000 Bench Sr.No:-31 [3506] Ushodaya Publications, Eenadu Complex, Hyd ...Petitioner Vs. Labour Court, Guntur and another ...Respondent ********** Advocate for Petitioner:
Mrs.G SUDHA Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP FOR LABOUR, Mr.N GOPI CHAND
CORAM :SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 12th March 2026
ORDER: Both these writ petitions are instituted challenging even orders dated 10.07.2000 passed in W.P.M.P. Nos.127 and 126 of 1994 respectively on the file of 1st respondent – Tribunal, which eventually came to be allowed by the Tribunal by aforesaid orders.
2. The respondent workmen have instituted aforesaid miscellaneous petitions under Section 33(1)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming for the service benefits. The writ
2 CGR, J W.P. Nos.22761 & 22822 of 2000 petitioner – Management has opposed the said application both on maintainability as well as on merits.
3. Insofar as maintainability was concerned, it was pleaded that inasmuch as already there was a settlement reached between the parties and that the workmen have already received the monetary benefits without raising any dispute, they were precluded from instituting the claims. The Tribunal, however, disagreed with aforesaid contention of maintainability and further traversed on the merits of the matter and ultimately allowed the claims.
4. Heard Smt.G.Sudha, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Labour for 1st respondent and none appears for respondent employees.
5.
Learned counsel for petitioner has placed on record the
order dated 16.12.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No.4598 of 2007 and batch, concerning similar issues and would urge to dispose of the present cases in terms of aforesaid orders. Leaned Government Pleader appearing for 1st respondent did not dispute the said submission.
3 CGR, J W.P. Nos.22761 & 22822 of 2000
6. In view of the above submissions and for reasons alike in the
order dated 16.12.2016 in W.P. No.4598 of 2007 and batch, these writ petitions are also closed in terms thereof. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending
consideration, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J SS