Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 101 (AP)

S. Peddi Raju v. Government Of A. P.

2005-02-07

S.ANANDA REDDY, T.MEENA KUMARI

body2005
S. ANANDA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE present writ appeal is filed by the appellants who are stated to be the employees of the respondent Co-operative Society. When the 5th respondent Society discontinued the engagements of the services of the petitioners, they have come up before this Court with a writ petition seeking mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in terminating the petitioners from services by an order dated 31-3-2003 as illegal and with a consequential direction to continue them. The said writ petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this court by following his own order in a batch of writ petitions in W. P. No. 3171 of 2003 and batch. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants had been continuing for a long time, without issuing any notice they were abruptly discontinued under the impugned action of the 5th respondent. The learned Counsel also sought to contend that even if the provisions of section 116-C of the A. P. Co-operative societies Act are made applicable, still the appellants are entitled to continue in services as the 5th respondent Society was functioning by earning sufficient profits to meet the expenditure including the wages of the appellants. ( 3 ) THE said contention of the Counsel for the appellants is disputed and opposed by the learned Government Pleader. ( 4 ) AT the time of hearing, the learned government Pleader placed before this Court a copy of the judgment of the learned Single judge passed in a batch of writ petitions. In the said order, it was held that if an employee is retrenched or terminated contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, he can approach the Industrial Tribunal or the authority under the provisions of the A. P. Shops and Establishment Act at his option. It was also held that as the writ petition itself is not maintainable against Primary Co. operative Society, no relief could be granted in the writ petition. ( 5 ) HEARD both sides and considered the material on record. ( 6 ) IN fact, the questions of fact have to be considered if the contentions of the appellants are to be considered on merits. operative Society, no relief could be granted in the writ petition. ( 5 ) HEARD both sides and considered the material on record. ( 6 ) IN fact, the questions of fact have to be considered if the contentions of the appellants are to be considered on merits. Hence, in view of the fact that the writ petition itself was not maintainable and as sufficient alternative remedies are available under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act as well as A. P. Shops and Establishments Act, we are not inclined to acceptthe contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. ( 7 ) JNDER the above circumstances, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.