The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs Bolla Krishna Murthy
2022 Latest Caselaw 2411 AP

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI


     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                            AND
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY


                               W.A.No.419 of 2022
                        (Proceedings through physical mode)

     The State of Andhra Pradesh,
     Rep. by its Principal Secretary
     Velagapudi,
     Guntur District and three orders                                 .... Appellants

           Versus

     Bolla Krishna Murthy,
     s/o late Tata Rao,
     N.M.R, Work Inspector, Drainage
     Sub Division, Bhimavaram,
     West Godavari District and another                       ..      Respondents

     Counsel for the Appellant          :   Government Pleader for Services-III

     Counsel for Respondent No.1 :          Mr.M. Pitchaiah

     Counsel for Respondent No.2 :          Government Pleader for Services-I


                                       JUDGMENT

Dt.26.04.2022 (Per M.Satyanarayana Murthy, J)

1) This writ appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,

aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge in

W.P.No.8746 of 2021 dated 03.11.2021, whereby, the order passed by

the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D No.254 of

1996 dated 15.09.2001, observing as follows:

"The petitioner is not claiming any interest from any "specific date", but a reading of paragraph-5 shows he is claiming interest from the date of order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.12755 of 2005. As noticed earlier, the payments made by the respondent-State are not voluntary payments. The payments were made during the course of Court proceedings and after orders were passed in favour of the petitioner. The counter affidavit also shows that in order to avoid arrest the payment was made. In the opinion of this Court the petitioner can claim both the principal amount due and interest as all consequential benefits which were given to him. The person, who is deprived of his money is entitled to claim interest by whatever CJ and MSM,J WA_419_2022

name it is called. In the Constitution Bench judgment reported in Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa and Others v G.C.Roy2 (while dealing with a case under the Arbitration Act) the Constitution Bench held that a person who deprived of his money is entitled to interest. In the opinion of this Court the ratio of said decision about the delayed payment and interest thereon is applicable even to the present case. The petitioner has been agitating for his right since decades. It is a clear case of individual against the mighty State, a David versus Goliath story. Despite his efforts the complete payment due to him has not been paid over the years. Even in the contempt application the issue about the periodical revision of wages was raised and this was left open for this Court to decide. This Court already held that in view of the above, periodical revision in the wages are also to be paid to the petitioner. In line with the said conclusion this Court holds that interest is payable both due to the delay and for the procrastination of the respondents. However, no basis is filed for the interest claim that is made at 12% p.a. As per the Interest Act interest is payable at the rate which the money is taken in deposit by Commercial Banks but this is a matter of pleading and proof. However, Section 34 of CPC, which deals with post decree interest talks of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of payment. This can be adopted as an yardstick by this Court. Therefore, there shall be a direction to pay the outstanding viz., Rs.10,59,055/- along with 6% interest per annum from 05.10.2018 (date of Writ Petition order) till the date of actual payment.

It is also made clear that order in W.P.No.1448 of 2015, which deals with the benefits of regularization cannot be used to deny the emoluments due to the petitioner. In that case, the issue of regularization of the petitioner and the benefits due to him consequent to regularization was being discussed. The present case arises out of the order passed by a learned single Judge directing the "consequential benefits" to the petitioner, which has been confirmed in a Writ Appeal by the Division It is also made clear that order in W.P.No.1448 of 2015, which deals with the benefits of regularization cannot be used to deny the emoluments due to the petitioner. In that case, the issue of regularization of the petitioner and the benefits due to him consequent to regularization was being discussed. The present case arises out of the order passed by a learned single Judge directing the "consequential benefits" to the petitioner, which has been confirmed in a Writ Appeal by the Division.

It is also made clear that order in W.P.No.1448 of 2015, which deals with the benefits of regularization cannot be used to deny the emoluments due to the petitioner. In that case, the issue of regularization of the petitioner and the benefits due to him consequent to regularization was being discussed. The present case arises out of the order passed by a learned single Judge directing the "consequential benefits" to the petitioner, which has been confirmed in a Writ Appeal by the Division."

2) For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred

as arrayed in the writ petition.

3) The petitioner filed I.D.No.254 of 1996, alleging that, he joined

in service as workmen on 01.08.1984 at Sub Divisional Office of the

fifth respondent/Deputy Executive Engineer, Drainage Sub Division,

Bhimavaram, West Godavari District and worked continuously

without any blemish upto 31.08.1987. The fifth respondent is CJ and MSM,J WA_419_2022

carrying on a systematic activity of digging the drainage canals and

such other incidental activities. Petitioner was employed by the

management in connection with the above said work and he

discharged the duties of technical work inspector. He was paid

nominal wages and he was deprived of S.S.R rates fixed by the

Government of A.P. from time to time. Since the duties discharged by

the petitioner are equal to the duties of a regular technical inspector,

he is entitled to time scale of technical inspector on the principle of

equal pay for equal work from the date of his employment. On

01.09.1987, when the petitioner attended to duty, Respondent No.5

orally informed that his services were terminated.

4) The petitioner raised several contentions before the Labour

Court, Guntur with regard to relationship of „employee‟ and „employer‟

and termination of employee etc. The Labour Court passed an Award

in I.D.No.254 of 1996 dated 15.09.2001 setting-aside the oral

termination order of Respondent No.1 dated 01.09.1987 and directed

to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but

without backwages.

5) Dissatisfied with the direction issued by the Labour Court,

Guntur, petitioner filed W.P.No.8746 of 2021 under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action

of the respondents in not paying petitioner on par with regular

Technical Assistants (Regular Work Inspectors), as arbitrary and

violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 39d of the Constitution of India,

consequently direct the respondents to pay Rs.10,59,055/- together

with interest @ 12% per annum.

6) The main contention of the petitioner before the learned single

Judge was that, though the petitioner was reinstated by order in CJ and MSM,J WA_419_2022

I.D.No.254 of 1996 dated 15.09.2001, no direction was issued for

payment of backwages on par with regular Work Inspectors and again

he was terminated by the respondents. The same was challenged by

the petitioner in W.P.No.12755 of 2005, which was allowed on

05.10.2018 declaring that the retrenchment was bad and directed the

petitioner to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. Challenging

the Labour Court Award in I.D.No.254 of 1996, an appeal was filed by

the State vide W.P.No.14480 of 2006 and the same was dismissed on

14.02.2011. Against the order of the learned single Judge in

W.P.No.12755 of 2005 dated 05.10.2018, by which the petitioner was

directed to be reinstated into service, Writ Appeal No.339 of 2019 was

filed by the respondents, which was also dismissed on merits on

16.03.2021.

7) Since the payments were not made, contempt proceedings were

initiated in C.C.No.3436 of 2018. In the contempt proceedings also,

the respondents before the learned single Judge raised an issue

relating to disentitlement of this petitioner to claim back wages for the

period from 21.05.2005 to 25.07.2019, while contending that the

respondents paid a total amount of Rs.7,55,305/- towards back

wages and a sum of Rs.10,59,055/- is due. Therefore, sought a

direction for payment of arrears of Rs.10,59,055/- together with

interest @ 12% per annum.

8) The respondents contended before the learned single Judge

that, they had already paid all the legitimate amount due to the

petitioner and filed a calculation memo admitting payment of

Rs.7,55,305/-, while contending that the petitioner is not entitled to

claim back wages. The respondents contended that they rightly

followed the procedure stipulated under Section 17(b) of the CJ and MSM,J WA_419_2022

Industrial Disputes Act, which is reproduced in the counter affidavit

and that the petitioner did not work at all during the relevant period

and he was paid Rs.145/- per day as wages. The payment made in

the Execution Proceedings in the Labour Court was calculated on the

very same basis for the period from 01.03.2003 to 31.01.2005, but

denied the amount claimed by the petitioner before the learned single

Judge. Finally, it is contended that, in W.P.No.14480 of 2006,

Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the regularization of

this petitioner held that he will not be entitled to arrears of salary

from 25.11.1993 and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

9) Upon considering the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in

State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others1 and

Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa and others vs. G.C.

Roy2 the learned single Judge directed to pay the outstanding amount

of Rs.10,59,055/- along with 6% interest per annum from

05.10.2018, while making it clear that the order in W.P.No.1448 of

2015 which deals with the benefits of regularization, cannot be used

to deny emoluments due to the petitioner.

10) Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the

present appeal is filed on various grounds, reiterating the contentions

that, there was no relationship of „employee‟ and „employer‟ between

the petitioner and respondents, but the learned single Judge did not

consider the same with reference to the settled legal proposition of law

that without prior adjudication or recognition of the disputed claim of

the workmen, proceedings for computations of arrears of wages

and/or difference of wages claimed by the workmen is not

maintainable and requested to set-aside the same.

(2017) 1 SCC 148

(1992) 1 SCC 508 CJ and MSM,J WA_419_2022

11) During hearing, learned Government Pleader for Services-III

reiterated the contentions, whereas, Mr.M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel

for the writ petitioner/Respondent No.1 supported the order in all

respects and requested to dismiss the writ appeal.

12) As seen from the material on record, more particularly, the

order in I.D.No.254 of 1996 dated 15.09.2001, the petitioner was

directed to be reinstated into service. Since the Award was not

implemented, the petitioner filed Execution Petition and he was

reinstated into service. However, he was again terminated by the

respondents, which was the subject matter of W.P.No.12755 of 2005.

The same was allowed on 05.10.2018 declaring the retrenchment as

bad and directed the petitioner to be reinstated with all consequential

benefits. An appeal was filed by the State in W.P.No.14480 of 2006

challenging the Award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.254 of 1996 by

which the petitioner was reinstated into service with all consequential

benefits and the writ petition was dismissed on 14.02.2011.

Dissatisfied with the same, the respondents herein preferred

W.A.No.339 of 2019 which also ended in dismissal on merits on

16.03.2021. Thus, the litigation between the petitioner and the

respondents before the Labour Court and before this Court has ended

in favour of this petitioner upholding the order passed by the Labour

Court with regard to reinstatement into service, while declaring the

termination of this petitioner as illegal and bad under law. Thus,

there is subsisting relationship of employee and employer and the

findings recorded by the Labour Court cannot be disturbed at this

stage. But, surprisingly, the respondents raised a contention that

there was no relationship of „employee‟ and „employer‟ between the

petitioner and respondents. Therefore, it is not open to the CJ and MSM,J WA_419_2022

respondents to raise such contention in the writ appeal when the

findings recorded by the Labour Court and learned single Judge

regarding the relationship of the petitioner and respondents as

„employee‟ and „employer‟ have attained finality.

13) The respondents also paid part of the amount i.e. Rs.7,55,305/-

to this petitioner. But, the contention of this petitioner before the

learned single Judge was that, though he was appointed as NMR

Work Inspector, he discharged duties on par with regular Technical

Assistants and he was paid regular S.S.R rates, as such he is entitled

to claim benefits of the judgment of the Apex Court in State of

Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others (referred supra).

The learned single Judge rightly concluded that the petitioner is also

entitled to claim time scale on par with regular workmen. When once

the learned single Judge concluded that this petitioner is entitled to

claim the benefit of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in State

of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others (referred supra),

this Court cannot come to any different conclusion, while exercising

limited jurisdiction under Letters Patent.

14) In view of the law laid down by various courts in the judgments

referred supra, the petitioner is entitled to claim benefit of the

judgment in Apex Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit

Singh and others (referred supra) and entitled to minimum time

scale on par with regular Works Inspector. But the same was not paid

to the petitioner, except payment of Rs.7,55,305/-, as per the

admission made by the respondents in the counter affidavit and in

the calculation memo. By applying the law laid down by the Hon‟ble

Apex Court, the findings recorded by the learned single Judge is

upheld, holding that this petitioner is entitled to claim minimum time CJ and MSM,J WA_419_2022

scale on par with regular Work Inspector. Therefore, we find no

illegality in the order passed by the learned single Judge, warranting

interference of this Court.

15) One of the grounds raised by the respondents before the

learned single Judge was that, the respondents have complied with

the procedure prescribed under Section 17(b) of the Industrial

Disputes Act. But the learned single Judge did not agree with the said

contention and observed that, compliance of Section 17(b) of the

Industrial Disputes Act is like payment of subsistence allowance

during the period of suspension and it is the mandatory duty of the

respondents to comply with Section 17(b) of the Industrial Disputes

Act. But the learned single Judge also observed that the order in

W.P.No.14480 of 2015 will have o bearing on the issue, since it was

only for regularization.

16) The learned single Judge also held that the petitioner is entitled

to claim interest on the amount due to him and on the basis of the

law declared by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Irrigation Department,

Government of Orissa and others vs. G.C. Roy (referred supra), the

Constitution Bench concluded that the petitioner is entitled to claim

interest. But the Hon‟ble Apex Court while dealing with the case

under Arbitration Act, held that, a person who is deprived of his

money is entitled to interest. Therefore, the petitioner who was

deprived of money by way of salary is entitled to interest thereon and

by applying the ratio laid down therein, the learned single Judge

granted interest. More so, In Smt. Dinavahi Lakshmi

Kameswari v. The State of Andhra Pradesh3, Division Bench of this

Court (to which I am a member) held that non-payment of salary or

2020 (5) ALT 77 CJ and MSM,J WA_419_2022

pension, if not authorized by law, is violation of Article 300-A of the

Constitution of India and awarded interest 12% per annum on the

deferred pension. The matter was carried to Supreme Court by way of

Special Leave to Appeal (c) No.12553 of 2020, wherein the Apex Court

while affirming the order of the Division Bench of this Court, scaled

down the interest from 12% to 6%. Therefore, based on the judgment

of the Apex Court in the judgment referred supra, interest at the rate

of 6% on the arrears of benefits payable to the petitioner is hereby

awarded. In view of the law declared by this Court and Hon‟ble Apex

Court in the judgments referred supra, the petitioner is entitled to

claim interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

17) On overall consideration of entire material on record and

findings recorded by the learned single Judge, based on earlier orders

passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.254 of 1996 and this Court in

W.A.No.339 of 2019, we find no scope of interference of this Court,

while exercising jurisdiction under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against

the order passed by the learned single Judge in Intra Court Appeal

and the conclusions arrived by the learned single Judge do not suffer

from any perversity or illegality, thereby, the findings of the learned

single Judge are confirmed, while dismissing the writ appeal.

18) In the result, writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.

19) Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

also stand closed.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,J

SP