A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court refused to entertain a writ appeal by employees of security printing press in Hyderabad on payment of overtime allowance.
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court refused to entertain a writ appeal by employees of security printing press in Hyderabad on payment of overtime allowance. The panel, comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, heard a writ appeal filed by retired employees. The appellants filed a writ petition challenging an award passed by the central government industrial tribunal, Hyderabad. The writ petitioners also sought a consequential prayer against Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited to compute and release the arrears of amounts payable towards overtime under the Factories Act. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of their overtime work, payment of allowances and in its lieu, special allowance was denied to the petitioners. It is the further case of the petitioners that the government had highhandedly and contrary to the express provisions of the Factories Act, issued a memorandum stating that the petitioners, on reaching a particular stage in the pay scale attached to the post held by the petitioners, would cease to get the benefit of Section 59 of the Factories Act. The Union government referred the dispute to the tribunal, when the petitioners sought invocation of the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication of the dispute on merit. However, the tribunal held that the petitioners may not be called as workmen as defined under Section 2 (s) as there is no industrial dispute as defined under Sec. 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, because the instant case related to the claim for overtime allowance does not come under category of industrial dispute mainly related to even any difference between the employer and the employees over the point of their employment. A single judge junked the challenge to the said order. The single judge, while dismissing the present claim, also pointed out that the 1998 award of the industrial tribunal-II, Hyderabad, has attained finality and few petitioners challenged the same by way of writ petition, which upheld the award. It held that the petitioners are not workmen as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act and Factories Act and then in their writ appeal the appellant sought to withdraw the same with a liberty to approach the appropriate authority under the Factories Act. It was contended by the respondent authorities that petitioners have no locus-standi to agitate the very same issue which has attained finality. While dismissing the claim, the panel speaking through acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul pointed out that the issue raised in the present appeal stood decided in an earlier round of litigation and did not require reconsideration.
Farmer gets bail in narcotics case
Justice K. Sujana of the Telangana High Court granted bail to a farmer accused in a narcotics case dating back to 2012. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Bavuru from Sangareddy district. According to the prosecution, in March 2012, an enforcement team had raided the house of the petitioner and another and another in a Enkapally village thanda of Ranga Reddy district, and seized 180 kg of dry ganja from ten plastic bags. The accused allegedly fled from the scene. A case was registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, The counsel for the petitioner contended that the charge sheet lacked substantial evidence, violated the provisions of the NDPS Act, and that the witnesses were ‘interested’ parties. The counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the petitioner was arrested 12 years after the alleged offence, in November 2024. As the material part of the investigation was completed, the petitioner prayed the court to grant bail by allowing the criminal petition. The judge observed that a significant gap existed between the registration of the case and the petitioner’s arrest and that the key aspects of the investigation were completed. Considering these factors and the absence of pending cases against the petitioner, the judge deemed it fit to grant bail, subject to conditions.
Supplier of eggs to Balika Vidyalaya gets one week’s reprieve
The Telangana High Court granted a week’s reprieve to an eggs supplier under the midday meal scheme after he challenged his blacklisting and forfeiture of his earnest money deposit. Justice T. Vinod Kumar admitted a writ petition filed by J. Ashok Kumar, who contested the decision of the district educational officer (DEO), Mancherial. The decision cancelled his permission to supply eggs from November, 2024 to several Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya (KGBV) girls' hostels attached to Telangana model schools. The affected hostels include those in Bellampally, Kasipet, Nennel, Beemini, Tandur, and Kannepally. The petitioner argued that the blacklisting and contract termination was illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of natural justice, as well as contrary to the allotment order issued by the respondent authorities on July 4, 2024. During the hearing, the judge emphasized that the midday meal scheme plays a crucial role in encouraging student attendance and promoting literacy. The assistant government pleader (AGP), representing the respondent authorities, countered that the vendor had failed to supply eggs for over a month, leading to the termination of the contract. However, counsel for the petitioner argued that his client had been supplying eggs since July and sought one week's time for compliance and further instructions. The matter is posted for further adjudication.
Pleas against TSMC over non-payment of salaries
The Telangana High Court will hear a batch of writ pleas alleging non-payment of salaries by the Telangana State Minorities Commission (TSMC). Justice Surepalli Nanda took on file a batch of six writ pleas filed by Syed Raheem and others. The petitioners worked with TSMC in different positions, including as advisor to the chairman of TSMC, personal secretary, drivers and attenders, among others. It is the case of the petitioners that the commission had failed to pay their salaries from May 2023 to November 2024. The petitioners contended that non-payment of salaries of the petitioners is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioners sought a direction to the respondent authorities to settle the unpaid salaries of the petitioners with immediate effect.
