Andhra High Court
9.3. The Full Bench considered the relevant provisions of the Act, 1966. Section 41 of the Act, 1966 is analogues to Section 48 of the Act, 1988. The only difference is, according to sub-section (3) therein, the second appeal would lie to the Labour Court, whereas, as per the new Act, second appeal would lie before the Deputy Commissioner/Joint Commissioner. It appears, under the old Act, there was no mandate to pre-deposit the amount to prefer second appeal. Rule 21 of 1966 Rules is also analogous to Rule 21 of 1990 Rules.
9.4. On elaborate consideration of the rival contentions and precedent decisions on the issue of interpretation of relevant provisions of the Act, the full bench has categorically held that unless it is specifically provided, provisions of the Limitation Act are not attracted to the second appeal under the A.P.Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 and second appellate authority has no power to condone the delay in filing second appeal and entertain the appeal. The full bench held that the Labour Court is not the court to extend the provisions of the Limitation Act.
STATEMENT SHOWING THE PHYSICAL STANDARDS WHICH COULD NOT BE FULFILLED BY THE CANDIDATES Sl. No. PARTICULARS No. of Candidates 1 Height 13 (8M+5F) 2 Chest Expansion 41 (21M+20F) 3 Minimum Chest 18 (17M+1F) 4 Decayed Teeth 12 (9M+3F) 5 Vision Standards 6 (M) 6 Colour Blindness 2 (M) 7 Varicose veins 2 (M) 8 Flat foot 3 (M) 9 Fractured Limbs 1 (M) 10 Knock Knees 1 (F)
25. It may be seen that the break-up given by us in the paragraph immediately preceding the previous paragraph tallies exactly with the total number of candidates said to be disqualified namely 83 in number. But in the Statement annexed to the report of the second Medical Board, the total comes to about 99 out of 167.
? Cases referred
1. (2001) 10 SCC 401
2. (2000) 4 SCC 262
3. 1989 Supp. (1) SCC 574 Court made the following order.
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HONBLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION Nos.7984, 8808 and 35495 of 2016 and CONTEMPT CASE Nos.2240 and 2241 of 2016 COMMON ORDER: (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.) The Andhra Pradesh Health Laboratories and Food (Health) Administration Subordinate Service originally comprised of 47 categories of posts and divided into 8 classes. Class-A comprised of 5 categories of posts, Class-B comprised of only one category of post, Class-C comprised of 3 categories of posts, Class-D comprised of 2 categories of posts, Class-E comprised of 10 categories of posts, Class-F comprised of 5 categories of posts and Class-G comprised of 21 categories of posts.
The case of the petitioner is that his marriage was performed on 26.05.2010 and the fourth respondent was practising as an advocate at the time of marriage. At the time of marriage, the fourth respondent and her mother represented that the date of birth of the fourth respondent is 08.08.1981 by showing their family ration card, but the date of birth of the petitioner is 08.05.1980. In view of date of birth shown to the petitioner, he married the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent applied for a passport showing the date of birth as 08.08.1981 before marriage and the same was issued to her. On the basis of the evidence of the passport, the fourth respondent obtained learner's licence in November, 2010 and also applied for permanent two wheeler licence in December, 2010. In all the above documents, her date of birth was shown as 08.08.1981. But thereafter he came to know that the actual date of birth of the fourth respondent is 26.02.1969. In those circumstances, he filed O.P.No.1279 of 2011 before the Family Court, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, under Section 12(1)(c) and 13(i)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act for annulment of his marriage with the fourth respondent on the ground of fraud or alternatively, for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The fourth respondent filed her counter on 24.09.2013 in the said petition admitting her date of birth as 26.02.1969 and stated that she gave necessary papers to her father to obtain passport and she received the passport with an incorrect date of birth. The petitioner's father gave a written complaint to the third respondent for taking action against the fourth respondent and her mother and when no action was taken, a private complaint was filed before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 200 CrPC and the same was referred to the third respondent for investigation. On receipt of the said complaint, the third respondent registered it as F.I.R.No.527 of 2014 dated 07.11.2014 against the fourth respondent and her mother, the fifth respondent for an offence under Sections 211, 417, 419 and 420 IPC. The fourth respondent and her mother filed criminal petition Nos.2478 and 2480 of 2015 to quash the F.I.R., registered against them. They are pending. In view of the failure of the third respondent to conduct investigation, the petitioner filed W.P.No.15920 of 2015 seeking a direction to the third respondent to complete the investigation in a time bound manner and the said writ petition was disposed of 17.07.2015 directing the third respondent to complete the investigation and file a report within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The investigation revealed that the fourth respondent obtained the passport by filing a false affidavit before the Passport Authority stating that she was illiterate and her date of birth as 08.08.1981 on the basis of the family ration card containing the said date. She obtained the passport in 2010. She was not illiterate as she obtained B.Com., L.L.B., and L.L.M.degrees. The fourth respondent and her mother gave false dates of birth even in the biodata given to Community Matrimonial Souvenirs of 2004 and 2005 stating her date of birth as 08.08.1977. After investigation, the third respondent filed a charge sheet against the fourth respondent and her mother on 15.10.2015 for the offences under Sections 198, 199, 406, 420 IPC and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act and the said charge sheet was taken cognizance vide C.C.No.1203 of 2015 dated 31.10.2015 by the Court. Summons were issued to the fourth respondent and her mother. Though a charge sheet was filed under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, no sanction from the competent authority was filed. The petitioner states that as a de facto complainant, he filed a petition before the learned Magistrate under Section 302 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to permit him to conduct prosecution in the said case and he was permitted. Challenging the said order, the fourth respondent filed a revision before the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and the matter is pending. He sent a letter through his counsel to the third respondent on 15.11.2016 requesting the third respondent to obtain proper sanction from the concerned authority and to file it in the pending C.C.No.1203 of 2015, but the third respondent informed him that they need not obtain permission from the learned Magistrate for further investigation as the cognizance of the charge sheet was already taken by the learned Magistrate.
The husband of the petitioner, who was appointed as a contract driver in Chittoor-I Depot, died while in service on 20.02.2012 leaving behind the petitioner and her two minor children. The petitioner states that she is entitled for compassionate appointment under the Bread Winner Scheme. In respect of dependents of regular employees, they are eligible for payment of additional monetary benefit in lieu of employment from the year 1989. But, in view of the hardship of the families of contract employees who died while in service, the management extended the scheme of compassionate employment to the eligible dependants by entering into a Memorandum of Settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, with the APSRTC Employees Union on 03.08.2013. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.2, Transport Department dated 05.01.2013 according permission to APSRTC to provide compassionate appointments to all the eligible dependents of the employees who died in harness during the period from 01.01.1998 to 31.12.2010. It was clarified in G.O.Ms.No.15, Transport Department, dated 07.02.2014, making it applicable to the employees who died thereafter also. The Corporation also issued circular on 01.03.2014 directing continuance of process of recruitment under the Bread Winner Scheme in respect of the employees who died beyond 31.12.2010 also.
? Cases referred
1. (2016) 2 SCC 36
2. (1991) 3 SCC 647
3. (1993) 4 SCC 392
4. AIR 2012 SC 169 Court made the following Judgment HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HONBLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS A.S.No.349 of 2016 JUDGMENT: (per V. Ramasubramanian, J.) Aggrieved by the dismissal of her suit for partition, the unsuccessful plaintiff has come up with this regular appeal.
2. Heard Sri Ch. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K. Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The appellant herein filed a suit in O.S.No.71 of 2011 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, seeking partition and separate possession of her half share in the properties described in the schedule to the plaint. The case of the appellant in her plaint, inter alia was: that the respondent herein is her elder brother; that the father of the appellant and the respondent by name M. Satyanarayana Reddy died at Gudur, Kurnool District on 27.04.2006; that the suit properties are ancestral properties; that on 04.08.1954, the appellants grandfather by name M. Venkatarami Reddy and his two sons Satyanarayana Reddy and Chandrasekhar Reddy partitioned the ancestral properties; that while the properties described in Schedule-A fell to the share of the appellants grandfather, the properties described in B-schedule fell to the share of the appellants father and the properties described in C-schedule fell to the share of the appellants paternal uncle; that after the death of the appellants grandfather, A-schedule properties devolved upon the appellants father; that after the death of their father on 27.04.2006 followed by the death of their mother on 09.05.2011, the properties devolved upon her and the respondent.
>Head Note :
? Cases referred
1. (2014) 2 SCC 1
2. (2014) 8 SCC 273
3. (1994) 4 SCC 260
4. (1978) 2 SCC 424
5. (2006) 8 SCC 1 THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.14072 AND 45558 OF 2016 AND 13559 OF 2017 COMMON ORDER:
These three writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
W.P.No.14072 OF 2016 This writ petition was filed challenging the action of the respondents 3 and 5 in summoning the petitioner, illegally confining him, and indulging in physical and verbal abuses, and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to cause an enquiry into the illegal confinement of the petitioner along with the physical and verbal abuse by the fifth respondent on 14.12.2015 in the office of the third respondent.
? Cases referred:
1. 2015 (3) ALT 628 HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HONBLE Ms. JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI Writ Petition No.4754 of 2015 Order: (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.) The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging the refusal of the respondents to absorb him in the post of District and Sessions Judge (Entry Level) on par with other candidates, who were so absorbed.
2. Heard Mr. A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel, representing Mr. B.Harinath Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
3. The petitioner was appointed as a Fast Track Court Judge in the category of District and Sessions Judge (Entry Level), on 14-10-2003, pursuant to a selection conducted by the High Court as per the notification dated 13-8-2002. After working for nearly about 10 months as the 3rd Additional District Judge (FTC), Nizamabad, up to 24-8-2004, the petitioner resigned. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in TC (C) No.22 of 2001, dated 19-4-2012, reported in Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India [(2012) 6 SCC 502], the High Court issued a notification dated 13-8-2012 for absorption of ad hoc Fast Track Court Judges in the regular vacancies. The petitioner applied and appeared for a written examination on 16-9-2012.
? Cases referred:
1. (2006) 4 SCC 1
2. (2009) 5 SCC 65
3. 2003 3 LLJ 937
4. 2010 (5) ALT 652 (DB)
5. (1987) 3 SCC 308
6. (1996) 6 SCC 216
7. (2006) 8 SCC 111
8. (2010) 9 SCC 247
9. (2015) 8 SCC 265
10. (2014) 7 SCC 223 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO W.P Nos.14457 of 2010; 34753, 35502, 37432, 37521, 37522, 37976, 38457, 39109 & 39685 of 2012 & 12547 of 2013 Date: 27.04.2017 W.P.No.14457 of 2010 Between :
Atlur Krishnaiah, S/o. Channaiah, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Messenger-cum-
Sweeper, R/o. Atlur, Kadapa District and eight others Petitioners And The Chairman, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Head Office, Kadapa and others Respondents The Court made the following:
? Cases referred:
2012 (6) ALD 98 HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HONBLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI Writ Petition No.7705 of 2013 ORDER: (V. Ramasubramanian, J) The petitioner, who narrowly missed (or perhaps escaped) the chance of getting selected for appointment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level), has come up with the present writ petition challenging the selection and appointment of the 5th respondent.
2. Heard Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Vidyasagar, learned senior counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.
3. The short ground on which the petitioner challenges the selection of the 5th respondent is that to be eligible for selection to the post of District Judge, a candidate should have had at least 7 years of standing at the Bar. The notification for recruitment in this case was issued on 15-04-2012 and 7 years of standing at the Bar was required as on 01-04-2012. The 5th respondent was enrolled as an Advocate in the Bar Council on 08-07-2004 and hence claimed to have completed 7 years of standing at the Bar as on 01-04-2012.
Ezra 8:10 - "And of the sons of Shelomith; the son of Josiphiah, and with him an hundred and threescore males."