Telangana High Court
M.A. Wahid, vs Union Of India, on 20 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL No.1375 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)
Sri Goda Siva, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Ms. Goda Ramalakshmi, learned counsel for the appellants and
Sri B.Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General of
India, for Union of India.
2. This matter has a chequered history. The appellants (writ
petitioners) raised an industrial dispute, which became subject
matter of adjudication in I.D.No.35 of 1998 decided by Award
dated 28.12.1998 (Annexure P-13).
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants fairly submitted
that the said industrial dispute and reference was pregnant with
the claim of present appellants regarding grant of overtime
allowance. In the award in I.D.No.35 of 1998, the Industrial
Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, opined that the employees in question are
not 'workmen' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the ID Act'). The
appellants assailed the said award by filing W.P.No.18351 of 1999
and the said writ petition was dismissed on 21.04.2003. The writ
appeal, namely W.A.No.152 of 2004, was filed before a Division
Bench which came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 11.11.2009
with the following observations:-
"When this matter is taken up for hearing, the learned
Counsel for the appellants seeks permission of this Court to
withdraw the writ appeal as well as the writ petition
No.18351 of 1999 with a liberty to approach the appropriate
authority under the Factories Act. He has also made an
endorsement to that effect on the record.
Permission is accorded.
Accordingly, the writ appeal and the writ petition are
dismissed as withdrawn. However, liberty is granted as
sought for."
(Emphasis Supplied)
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that in
view of the liberty granted, the appellants in their personal
capacity, got the matter referred to the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter
referred to as, "the Tribunal") in relation to the same grievance of
non-payment of overtime allowance under the Factories Act, 1948.
The Tribunal answered the reference by Award dated 24.09.2015
in I.D.No.7 of 2012. In this Award also, the Tribunal opined that
the appellants are not 'workmen' under the ID Act. In the second
round, in the instant writ petition, namely W.P.No.7844 of 2016,
this order became subject matter of challenge. The learned Single
Judge, after considering the previous award dated 28.12.1998 and
the rejection of W.P.No.18351 of 1999, came to hold that the
Labour Court was justified in holding that the appellants are not
'workmen'. The learned Single Judge considered the findings of
fact given by the Tribunal, while passing the impugned order.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that
no doubt that in the previous round of litigation before the Labour
Court, the Writ Court and the Writ Appellate Court, the appellants
could not get any relief on merits, the fact remains that the
Division Bench gave them liberty to approach the appropriate
authority under the Factories Act, 1948. In this background, the
appellants rightly approached the 'appropriate Government' and
the matter was referred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal was not
justified in holding that the appellants were not 'workmen'.
6. No other point is pressed.
7. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants
at length.
8. Admittedly, in the first round of litigation, in I.D.No.35 of
1998, Court clearly gave a finding of fact that the appellants are
not 'workmen'. This order was unsuccessfully challenged in
W.P.No.18351 of 1999. The ancillary question is whether the
liberty given in W.A.No.152 of 2004 will infuse any life to the
appellants' claim that they are workmen and entitled to O.T.
allowance?
9. A microscopic reading of the order of the Division Bench in
W.A.No.152 of 2004 shows that the said appeal was sought to be
withdrawn with the liberty to the appellants to approach the
appropriate authority under the Factories Act, 1948. There exists
no such "appropriate authority" under the Factories Act, 1948.
Thus, the appellants availed the same remedy under the ID Act
and got the same question again referred before the Tribunal and,
after becoming unsuccessful, travelled to the Writ Court and then
in this appeal.
10. In our considered opinion, the fate of the appellants was
sealed in the first round of litigation itself when the finding of the
Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, given in I.D.No.35 of 1998,
dated 28.12.1998, that the appellants are not 'workmen', was not
disturbed. In the second round of re-agitation of the same issue,
the Tribunal could not have taken a different view and, after
considering various aspects including pay scale and job contents,
rightly came to hold that the appellants are not 'workmen'. Thus,
no relief was due to the appellants under the Factories Act, 1948,
for overtime allowance.
11. Before parting with the matter, we deem it proper to observe
that the present appellants unsuccessfully challenged the first
Award of Labour Court in I.D.No.35 of 1998 before the Writ Court
and withdrew their Writ Appeal i.e., W.A.No.152 of 2004.
However, under the garb of liberty given to the appellants to
approach the appropriate authority under the Factories Act, they
again raised another Industrial Dispute on the same subject
which, in our opinion, is an abuse of process of Court. Since first
Award in I.D.No.35 of 1998 was not interfered with, the liberty to
approach appropriate authority in W.A.No.152 of 2004 will not
mean that the Award passed in I.D.No.35 of 1998 has vanished in
thin air. Withstanding the findings of the said Award which
attained finality, no different view can be taken. The appellants
are trying to achieve something indirectly which they could not
achieve directly. This is clearly an avoidable piece of litigation. A
sizable amount of precious time of the Tribunal and learned single
Judge is being wasted by the appellants in this second round of
litigation. We disapprove and deprecate such practice.
12. The writ appeal is devoid of substance and is hereby
dismissed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
__________________________
RENUKA YARA, J
20.02.2025
sa/vs
