Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nandipati Veeraiah vs Bommidala Brothers Limited, on 2 January, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.20066 OF 2016
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for the following relief:
"To issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring
the order dated 07.04.2016 in M.P.No.1/2009 on the file of
the 2nd Respondent Court as arbitrary and violative of
Articles 14 & 21 Constitution of India and provisions of
I.D.Act more particularly Sec.25-HH and 33C of I.D.Act by
setting aside the same and consequently direct the 1st
respondent to pay the amounts as claimed in M.P.No.1 of
2009 on the file of the Labour Court with interest @ 12% per
annum grant proceedings and pass such other order or
orders."
2. The present Writ Petition is filed to set aside the order
dated 07.04.2016 in M.P.No.1 of 2009 on the file of the 2 nd
respondent, i.e., Labour Court, Guntur, and consequently, to
direct the 1st respondent to pay the amount as claimed in
M.P.No.1 of 2009 with interest @ 12% per annum.
3. The petitioner herein has joined as Clerk on 04.09.1980 in
the 1st respondent-industry and worked upto 04.11.1986 on
which date, the petitioner was retrenched from service by the 1 st
respondent. The petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute, vide
I.D.No.648 of 1991, assailing the retrenchment made by the 1 st
respondent herein and the said I.D. was allowed by order dated
31.05.2000 observing that the retrenchment of the applicant
with effect from 04.11.1996 is not in accordance with Section
25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the ID Act')
and the same is not legally valid.
4. Assailing the said order, the 1st respondent has filed Writ
Petition No.20169 of 2000 before the composite High Court and
the High Court has stayed the operation of the award and
directed the 1st respondent herein to pay wages under Section
17B of the ID Act to the petitioner herein by an order dated
23.03.2001. Later, the 1st respondent has withdrawn the Writ
Petition and the said Writ Petition No.20169 of 2000 was
dismissed as withdrawn on 11.08.2008.
5. Be that as it may, after dismissal of the Writ Petition on
withdrawal by the 1st respondent herein, the petitioner herein
has filed M.P.No.01 of 2009 in I.D.No.648 of 1991 under Section
33C(2) of the ID Act seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to
pay an amount of Rs.3,39,709/- with interest at 12% per annum
from the 1st respondent herein. The Labour Court has dismissed
the said Miscellaneous Petition observing thus:
"The established principle is that while
entertaining an application U/s.33 C(2) of the I.D.Act
the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to go beyond the
award passed by the court. Infact, the Labour Court
has no jurisdiction to adjudicate claim made in
proceedings U/s.33 C(2) of the I.D. Act. As verified
from the award passed in I.D. No.648/1991 the court
felt that the petitioner did not question the
termination order or other wise, but made a claim for
difference retrenchment compensation, notice pay etc.
Considering the fact that the approach of the
petitioner was belated for more than five years after
receiving the terminal benefits, the court only granted
reinstatement as a fresh candidate. Taking into
consideration of the findings given in the award, the
claim made by the petitioner require adjudication.
Though the petitioner intend to invoke the provisions
U/s. 25 (HH) the same is not available for the reason
that there was no specific finding given by the Labour
Court that the petitioner was retrenched."
6. Assailing the said order, the present Writ Petition came to
be filed for the aforesaid relief.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
termination of the petitioner itself is contrary to Section 25F of
the ID Act and once the order is set aside by the Industrial
Tribunal, the petitioner is entitled for the reinstatement, as
directed by the Labour Court, where in the present case, the
Labour Court has directed reinstatement of the petitioner
without back wages without continuity of service and the
rejection order itself is contrary to Section 25(HH) of the ID Act.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite
issuance of notice, the 1st respondent refused the said notice.
Hence, it is deemed to be served.
9. As seen from the provision of Section 25(HH) of the ID Act,
which is an amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act by the
State Government of Andhra Pradesh, which reads thus:
"Section 25HH: Condition of re-instatemen of
workman by an award of a Labour Court or Tribunal.--
Where a workman is re-instated in service by an
award of a Labour Court or Tribunal, the workman
shall be deemed to be in service from the date
specified in the award whether or not the workman
was earlier re-instated by the employer and his wages
shall be recovered in the manner provided in section
33C."
10. As seen from the said provision, when a workman is
reinstated into service by award of a Labour Court or Tribunal,
the workman is entitled for the wages recovered in the manner
provided in Section 33C of the ID Act. Section 33C envisages
that where any money is due to a workman from an employer
under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of the
workman himself or any other person authorized by him in
writing in this behalf, or, in the case of the death of the
workman, his assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any
other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate
Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the
appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it
shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who
shall proceed to recover the same in the manner as an arrear of
land revenue.
11. Clause (2) of Section 33C of the ID Act envisages that
where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any
money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in
terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of
money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be
computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may
be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as
may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government
within a period of not exceeding three months.
12. Under the above said provision, a workman is entitled to
receive any money from the employer and then he is entitled to
raise a dispute before the Labour Court. The Labour Court in
the award dated 07.04.2016, vide M.C.No.01 of 2009, has
declined to award an amount of Rs.3,39,709/- on the ground
that Section 25(HH) of the ID Act is not available for the reason
that there is no such specific finding that the petitioner was
retrenched and further stated that in view of the principle laid
down in various decisions given about the maintainability of the
application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act are not allowing
the Court to entertain the petition considering the facts and
circumstances involved.
13. The Labour Court has passed the award observing thus:
"Therefore, the respondent management has not fully
complied the provisions of sec.25(F) of I.D.Act in
retrenching the workman from service. Hence, the
said retrenchment is not in accordance with
Sec.25(F) of I.D. Act. Since the retrenchment of the
applicant with effect from 4-11-1986 is not in
accordance with the Sec.25(f) of I.D.Act, the same is
not legal and valid."
14. The other finding that it is delivered by the Labour Court is
that the petition under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act is not
maintainable in view of various decisions. The Labour Court has
not discussed or assigned any reasons about the maintainability
of Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, except stating that as per the
various decisions, the present petition is not maintainable.
15. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial
or quasi judicial system and another rationale is that affected
party can know why the decision has gone against him as per
the judgment of the Apex Court in Chairman and Managing
Director, United Commercial Bank and others v. P.C.Kokker 1.
(2003) 4 SCC 364
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
present petition under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act is
maintainable and he relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in
Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P.S.Rajagopalan 2 for the proposition
that Section 33C(2) of the ID Act is maintainable.
17. As the order impugned is unsustainable for the reasons
discussed in the above paragraphs, this Court directs the Labour
Court to pass appropriate orders after considering the judgment
of the Apex Court in P.S.Rajagopalan's case (2 supra).
18. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the finding of the Labour
Court vide order dated 07.04.2016 in M.P.No.1 of 2009 is
unsustainable and it is liable to be set aside.
19. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is allowed, setting
aside the impugned order dated 07.04.2016 in M.P.No.1 of 2009
on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur-2nd respondent herein
and the matter is remanded to the Labour Court to pass orders
afresh after considering all the provisions of law raised by the
petitioner herein and keeping in view of the judgment of the Apex
AIR 1964 SC 743
Court in the case of Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P.S.Rajagopalan
Etc.3. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any in
this case, shall stand closed.
________________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date: 02.01.2024
siva
AIR 1964 SC 743
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.20066 OF 2016
Date: 02.01.2024
siva
