The Depot vs G Seshagiri
2023 Latest Caselaw 4282 AP

                                 1




       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
                               And
     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

           WRIT APPEAL No.530 and 494 of 2021

COMMON ORDER: (per Justice D.V.S.S.Somayajaulu)

      This Court has heard the learned Advocate General

instructed by Sri M. Soloman Raju, learned standing counsel

for the APSRTC for the appellant, Sri C. Raghu, learned senior

counsel instructed by Sri V.Ch. Naidu for the 1st respondent

and the learned Government Pleader for Labour.

2) Learned Advocate General appearing for the appellant

and the learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent argued

the matter both on merits and on question of law. Learned

Advocate General submits that the objection raised by the

respondent that the writ appeal is not maintainable is not

correct. He submits that the Division Bench of this Court in

W.A.No.615 and 671 of 2021 has passed an order which has

to be relooked. It is his contention that leading cases on the

subject were not brought to the notice of the Division Bench

and the Bench proceeded to decide the matter by holding that

the Labour Court is also a Civil Court and, therefore, the Writ

Petition under Article 227 only would lie. It is his contention

that the Labour Court is not a Civil Court. Relying upon the

compendium of case law which he has filed including Bharat

Bank Ltd., v The Employees of Bharath Bank 1; Nalgonda

Cooperative Socieity v Labour Court2; National Institute

of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v C. Parameshwara 3;

Apollo Tyres Ltd., v C.P. Sebastian4 and E.Lakshmi

Narayana v High Court of A.P.,5 learned Advocate General

submits that the Labour Court is not a Civil Court. Therefore,

he prays that this Court should hold that the order passed in

W.A.No.615 and 671 of 2021 is not correct and that the

Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable. He also placed

reliance on various provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act

to argue that the Labour Court is not a Civil Court.

3) Even on merits learned Advocate General argued that

the learned single Judge committed a serious error in passing

AIR 1950 SC 188

(1993) 2 ALT 661

(2005) 2 SCC 256

(2009) 14 SCC 360

W.P.No.893 of 2013

"further orders" in a Writ of Certiorari, which is not

permissible as per him.

4) Sri C. Raghu, learned senior counsel argued for the

respondents. He points out that the issue of certiorari,

jurisdiction etc., are not raised in the grounds of appeal at all

and only the findings were questioned. Therefore, he submits

that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

can still be exercised. Therefore, he submits that power

under Article 227 is exercised and LPA is not maintainable.

He also relies upon the judgment in Jogendra Sinhji Vijay

Singhji v State of Gujarat6 and argues that the order

passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.615 and 671 of 2021

is good law and this Court cannot divert from the same.

5) The Judgment in W.A.No.615 and 671 of 2021 is

pronounced by a Division Bench of this court on 22.03.2022.

In paragraph 12the Division Bench spelt out the question for

decision as follows:-

"Whether the Labour Court is only a Court Subordinate to

the High Court or it is treated as a Civil Court?"

(2015) 9 SCC 1

6) The Division Bench relied upon the case of State of

Maharashtra v Labour Law Practiioners' Assn., 7, wherein

in paragraph 5 it was held that the Labour Court performs

judicial functions and is a Court and in conclusion it as held

that the Labour Courts are, therefore, Courts and decide

disputes that are civil in nature. Finally, in paragraph 17 the

Division Bench held that the Labour court exercised powers

and jurisdiction of a Civil Court and the orders passed by a

Civil Court can only be challenged by a writ under Article 227

of the Constitution of India. Learned Advocate General's

submissions rests upon the Bharat Bank Ltd., case (1

supra), which is a Constitution Bench judgment. In which

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the Industrial

Tribunal discharges judicial functions but it is not the Court

in the strict sense of the word. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in this matter was dealing with is powers under Article

136 of the Constitution. The conclusion, however, is that

although an Industrial Dispute Tribunal discharges certain

judicial functions it is not a court in the technical sense of the

word. In the case of Nalgonda Cooperative Society case (2

(1998) 2 SCC 688

supra) a Full Bench of the Combined High Court was hearing

a reference as to whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act

would apply to the proceedings before the Labour Court. In

paragraph 23 it was held by the Full Bench that merely

because a Labour Court has certain trappings of the Civil

Court it cannot be considered to be a Civil Court. It was held

that a Labour court cannot be considered to be an Ordinary

Court of law and it is only a Tribunal exercising judicial

functions. To the same effect in a C. Parameswara case (3

supra), wherein the issue was about Section 10 CPC and the

simultaneous adjudication of matters before a Labour Court

and a Civil Court. In paragraph 10 it was held that Section

10 of CPC is only applicable to the proceedings in Civil Court

and that the proceedings before the Labour Court cannot be

equated to the proceedings before a Civil Court. In a case of

E. Lakshmi Narayana case (5 supra) also the Division

Bench of the Court held in paragraphs 12 and 13 that the

Industrial Tribunal is not a Civil Court as per the A.P. Civil

Courts Act. Para nos.12 and 13 of the judgment are germane

for the present discussion. In Apollo Tyres Ltd., case (4

supra) the Hon'ble Supreme court of India held that a

contract of a personal service could only be enforced in a

Labour Court or in an Industrial Tribunal but the same is not

permissible in a Civil Court. A suit was filed before the

Munsiff Court in Kerala for enforcement of a Contractual

services. The suit was dismissed by the Civil Court and after

the appeals the matter reached to the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India which pronounced the above mentioned order.

7) The learned senior counsel for respondent argued that

the issues about the certiorari, lack of appeal etc., are not

essentially raised, but in this Court's opinion a number of

orders are being passed based upon the judgment passed by

the learned Division Bench in W.A.No.615 and 671 of 2021

and the challenges to the Labour Court's orders have been

rejected on this sole ground.

8) In view of the importance of the issues raised and as the

case laws cited by the learned Advocate General do merit

acceptance, this Court is of the opinion that the issues raised

have to be determined by a Larger Bench and therefore, the

Registry is directed to place the papers before the Hon'ble the

Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate Bench to

decide this issue.

__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J

_________________________________ DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J Date: .09.2023 Ssv

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

WRIT APPEAL No.530 and 494 of 2021

Dated: .09.2023 Ssv