Y RAVINDRANATH VARMA Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR APSRTC HYD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed in the respondent's Corporation on 6-7-1977 as Welder in Zonal Workshop of Cuddapah. There was a settlement between the workmen and the Corporation dated 19-10-1997 coming in the purview of Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. One of the terms of the settlement was that:

(2.) Complaining that the notification is contrary to the settlement referred to above, the present writ petition is filed. On 2-1-1998 while admitting the matter, an interim direction was granted directing the respondents to accept the application of the petitioner and permit him to attend the test and interview to be conducted by the Corporation for the purpose of above mentioned recruitment. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is absolutely silent about the fact whether the approval as required under clause 17 of the settlement was granted by the Government or not, as that fact could not be verified at the stage of admission. In case, if such approval was already granted, the petitioner would be put to serious and irreperable loss, if he lost the opportunity of participating the selection. This Court passed the above interim order keeping the balance of convenience in mind. However, the learned Standing Counsel produced a letter of Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 20-7-1999 whereunder the proposal of the respondent-Corporation seeking relaxation of age limit as contained in clause 17 of the settlement referred to above, was rejected.

(3.) In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the clause 17 of the Settlement cannot be given effect to, as from the terms of the settlement, it is clear that a part of the settlement is to reach finality only on the approval of the Government of such a term.