Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sree Raja Rajaswari Paper Mills Ltd., vs The Presiding Officer Another, on 3 January, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT PETITION No.7982 of 2004
WRIT PETITION No.7983 of 2004
and
WRIT PETITION No.7984 of 2004
COMMON ORDER :
The petitioner has filed the present writ petitions aggrieved by the Awards dated 29.11.2001 passed in ID.No.145 of 1994, ID.No.146 of 1994 and ID.No.143 of 1994. The unofficial respondents in all the three writ petitions were directed to be reinstated into service with continuity of service and with full back wages.
2. The 2nd respondent in WP.NO.7982 of 2004 was engaged as Finisher on 10.01.1983. The 2nd respondent in WP.No.7983 of 2004 was engaged as a General Operator on 11.01.1989 and the 2nd respondent in WP.No.7984 of 2004 joined as Assistant Civil Supervisor on 29.05.1981.
All the three respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'workmen') were placed under suspension by the petitioner-company on 15.03.1993.
3. The workmen were alleged to have indulged in Raja Rajeswari Paper Mills Limited Staff Workers Union -2- WP.Nos.7982, 7983 and 7984 of 2004 Activities. The demand for categorization of workmen, wage reviser and other demands of the workmen were taken up by the said Union. The workmen played active role in the activities of the Union and in taking forward the demands of the workmen to the management of the petitioner.
4. The workmen were issued charge-sheets dated 22.03.1993, 28.06.1993 and 13.07.1993 alleging that they are instigating the other workmen of the Factory to go on Tool Down Strike. It is also alleged that the workmen indulged in threatening the other co-workers and also indulged in other activities which according to the management would constitute misconduct.
5. Enquiry was proposed to be conducted and explanation of the workmen was called for. In spite of the workmen submitting their reply, the enquiry officer forwarded the enquiry report and the notice dated 13.12.1993 was issued seeking explanation as to why the services of the workmen should not be terminated.
6. All the workmen submitted their response, however unmindful of the response submitted by the workmen -3- WP.Nos.7982, 7983 and 7984 of 2004 their services were terminated vide proceedings dated 12.01.1994. The termination orders were under challenge before the Labour Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the workmen indulged in severe illogical activities which are detrimental to the interest of the petitioner and also the other workers.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the Labour Court has erred in directing the reinstatement of the workmen. It is also submitted that the Labour Court has erred in not considering the factual aspects submitted in appropriate manner and prays for setting aside the order of the Labour Court.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record an additional affidavit and additional documents vide IA.No.1 of 2023. The petitioner has placed on record additional documents including a copy of memorandum of settlement which was executed between the writ petitioner and the workmen of Sri Raja Rajeswari Paper Mills Limited. The memorandum of settlement amongst the workmen and the management was executed in the month of November, 2008. It is stated that after demise of the then Managing -4- WP.Nos.7982, 7983 and 7984 of 2004 Director A.K.Prasad, who expired in the month of July, 1999 there was nobody to take care of the petitioner-
company. Thereafter, on account of the rift between the Directors in the management, the Unit could not run and that the banker of the petitioner-company had stopped all transactions of the company and also attached the entire properties of the company.
9. It is also stated that the Unit stopped its operations with effect from 25.11.1999 and the power to the unit also from the Month of December, 1999. The settlement amongst the workmen of the petitioner-company and the management is as follows ;
1. All the workmen would submit their resignations on their own volition and the same are to be accepted and relieved them by the management.
2. The management agreed to pay the amounts as shown in the annexure to this settlement to each workman towards full and final settlement of all their claims including gratuity, bonus, leave encashment etc., each of the workman received the said amount have to issue a separate receipt acknowledging the receipt of the said amount.
3. Both the parties agreed to file a joint memo along with a copy of this settlement before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in WP.No.3222 of 2000, WP.No.3227 of 2001 and WP.No.7882 of 2003 praying the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., to pass judgment in terms of this settlement, so as the management would withdraw the amounts pending with the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, LIC of -5- WP.Nos.7982, 7983 and 7984 of 2004 India under Key Men Insurance Policy or with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Machilipatnam, if the amounts are deposited/pending with them relating to the company to distribute the said amount to the workmen in accordance with this settlement.
4. It is further agreed that the workmen would withdraw all the cases filed by them before any forum or Court either under Payment of Wages Act or under Industrial Disputes Act or under any other Act against the management in view of this settlement and they can have no other claims of any nature against the management relating to their employment.
5. The workmen categorically agreed and accepted that there is no dispute or demand or claim of any nature against the employer including for any reinstatement with or without back wages and all their disputes or claims or demands if any are settled fully and finally by the employer.
6. The workmen specifically agreed and accepted that they will not raise or authorize any person or union to raise any dispute or claim of whatsoever nature against the employer.
7. The workmen specifically agreed and accepted that the amount paid is adjustable to any statutory payment that may arise in future.
8. Both the parties agreed to forward jointly a copy of this settlement to
a) Secretary (Incharge Labour), Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
b) Commissioner of Labour, Andhra Pradesh, Anjaiah Bhavan, Chikkdapally, Hyderabad.
c) Joint Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru Zone, Eluru.
d) Dy.Commissioner of Labour/Conciliation Officer, Krishna District. As per Rule 60 of A.P.I.D. Rules, 1958.
-6-WP.Nos.7982, 7983 and 7984 of 2004
9. A joint memo was filed before this Court in WP.No.3222 of 2001 and 3227 of 2001, this Court had vide order dated 24.12.2008 disposed of the writ petitions by recording the terms of settlement shall form part of the record in the writ petitions. A joint memo was filed by the workmen of the petitioner-company and the management.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are not parties to the settlement agreement as they were terminated on account of having indulged in activities which were considered detrimental to the interest of the petitioner-company.
11. This Court while admitting the writ petitions had granted interim stay on 27.04.2004 and made the stay absolute on a condition complying the Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act on 10.08.2006. This Court has recorded the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the financial institutions have seized the petitioner-company.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has wound-up its activities and as such the compliance under Section 17-B also could not be done as there is no one responsible to take care of the activities of the petitioner-company. It is also submitted that it was only on account of a good-will measure settlement was entered with the workmen and the payments were made to their satisfaction not out of the funds of the petitioner- company's profits, but out of pure indulgence of the management, the settlement amounts were paid.
-7-WP.Nos.7982, 7983 and 7984 of 2004
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents (workmen) were aware of the settlement process, but as they were engaged elsewhere, they did not prefer to approach the petitioner. As such, prays this Court to allow the writ petitions by setting aside the Award passed by the Labour Court which is under challenge in the writ petitions.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that on the ground that the petitioner has not complied with Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the writ petitions ought to be dismissed. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents admits that the petitioner-company is no longer in existence. He also submits that the settlement was not within the knowledge of the respondent/workmen, however it is not disputed that majority of almost all workmen except the respondent/workmen herein have settled their claims with the petitioner-management. It is also submitted that there is no infirmity in so far as the Award of the Labour Court is concerned and the Labour Court has gone in detail the various aspects which led to the termination of the respondent/workmen. The Labour Court has elaborately dealt with all the factual issues and gave a finding on fact. The Labour Court having found that the termination of the respondent/workmen illegal and as such they were directed to be reinstated with back wages.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Bengal Bhatdee Coal Co.Vs. Ram Prabesh Singh and -8- WP.Nos.7982, 7983 and 7984 of 2004 Others in Civil Appeal No.24 of 1962 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It was held that victimization cannot be inferred because the appellant therein decided to dismiss the workmen and was not prepared to let them off with fine or suspension. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the workmen who were indulging in violence within the premises and posing threat to the safety of the other workmen and the management deserved to be terminated from service. He also submits that the petitioner-company is no longer in existence and has stopped its activities 24 years ago and prays this Court to consider the situation of the petitioner- company.
16. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, is further directions to the petitioner-company may be futile as there is nobody who can address the grievance of the respondent/workmen at this belated stage. The respondent/workmen ought to have approached the petition seeking settlement in the year 2008 as was done by the remaining workmen.
17. The writ petitions can be disposed of by setting aside the Awards under challenge in the writ petitions and giving liberty to the respondent/workmen to approach the persons/in-charge of the petitioner-company, if any and seek settlement in terms of the settlement arrived at between the workmen and the company in November, 2008.
-9-WP.Nos.7982, 7983 and 7984 of 2004
18. Accordingly, the Awards dated 29.11.2001 passed by Labour Court, Guntur in ID.No.145 of 1994, ID.No.146 of 1994 and ID.No.143 of 1994 are hereby set aside and giving liberty to the 2nd respondent/workmen to approach the persons/in-charge of the petitioner-company if any and seek settlement in terms of the settlement arrived at between the workmen and the company in November, 2008.
19. With the above observation, the writ petitions are disposed off. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE HARINATH. N Dt.03.01.2024.
KGM -10- WP.Nos.7982, 7983 and 7984 of 2004 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION No.7982 of 2004 WRIT PETITION No.7983 of 2004 and WRIT PETITION No.7984 of 2004 Dt.03.01.2024 KGM