Telangana High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs The Industrial Tribunal Ii on 11 March, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL Nos.1159 & 1156 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul):
Sri Prabhakar Sripada, learned Senior Counsel
represents Sri V. Mohan Srinivas, learned counsel for the
appellant; Sri T. Venkat Raju, learned Government Pleader for
Labour Department, for respondent No.1 and Sri T. Srikanth
Reddy, learned counsel represents Ms. K. Hemalatha, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. Since both the matters are arising out of industrial
dispute referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad
(hereinafter referred to as, "the Tribunal"), on the joint request of
learned counsel for the parties, these matters were analogously
heard.
3. These intra-court appeals assail the impugned common
order dated 06.11.2023 passed in W.P.Nos.33578 of 2010 and
4329 of 2011.
4. The facts in W.A.No.1159 of 2023 are referred for the
purpose of disposal of these appeals.
5. There is chequered history of this litigation. The parties
have fought a long drawn battle in the corridors of the Court.
The industrial dispute was initially referred by the then
Government and registered as I.D.No.19 of 1992 before the
Tribunal for deciding the point whether the management of
N.T.P.C. 400, K.V. Hyderabad Sub-station, Ghanapuram,
Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy District, was justified in terminating
the services of nine workmen. The Tribunal passed its first
Award on 23.09.1993. This Award became subject matter of
challenge in W.P.No.3219 of 1994. A learned Single Judge, by
order dated 21.01.2004, dismissed the said writ petition.
Dissatisfied with the said order, the appellant/employer filed
W.A.No.448 of 2004 which was allowed on 10.10.2006 by setting
aside the award dated 23.09.1993 as well as the order of learned
Single Judge dated 21.01.2004. The matter was remitted to the
Tribunal "for fresh consideration and disposal on merits". The
said order of Division Bench was assailed before the Supreme
Court in SLP (Civil) No.1643 of 2007. The Supreme Court
passed the following order:
"We have learned the learned counsel for the
parties.
These special leave petitions are directed against
the judgment and order dated 10.10.2006 passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad whereby the matter has been remitted to the
Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad for fresh consideration
and disposal on merits.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this
case, we deem it appropriate to request the Industrial
Tribunal, Hyderabad to dispose of the matter as
expeditiously as possible, in any event, within a period of
six months from the date of communication of this order.
The petitioners would be at liberty to file fresh
application(s) under Section 17-B of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, which would be decided by the
Tribunal within two months from the date of its filing.
The special leave petitions are disposed of with
the aforementioned observation and direction."
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/employer submits that
before the Tribunal, the principal stand of the employer was that
the industrial dispute was referred by the State Government
whereas "appropriate Government" is the Central Government.
Learned Single Judge has recorded alleged concession of learned
counsel for the appellant/employer that the appellant/employer
did not press the point relating to "appropriate Government". It
is argued that no concession of Advocate can create a
jurisdiction and this question of law needs to be decided.
7. In addition, it is submitted that since beginning, the
stand of the appellant/employer before the Tribunal was that the
nine terminated workmen for whom industrial dispute was
referred for adjudication were not appointed, engaged and
employed by the appellant/employer. They were employees of
the Contractors. For this purpose, a sizable number of
documents were filed which were supported by the management
witnesses while entering the witness box. The Tribunal brushed
aside those documents and their evidence by a bald finding that
the management has filed number of documents to confuse the
Tribunal.
8. The appellant/employer when raised aforesaid points
before the learned Single Judge in the present matter, following
findings were given:
"12. All the issues raised in the present Writ Petition
have already been answered in the earlier round of
litigation and this Court concurs with the findings given
by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3219 of 1994. The
matter was remanded only on the issue of the authority
of the State Government to refer the dispute to the
Industrial Tribunal as on that date and the Industrial
Tribunal after discussing the evidence placed by the
petitioner company more particularly the Gazette
notification specifically dated 31.12.1998 published
under Section 27(A)(1) of the Act and the letter of the
Ministry of Labour & Employment dated 09.03.2005 had
held that the State Government is the competent
authority to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal
as on that date."
9. It is submitted that learned Single Judge has based his
findings on the order passed in W.P.No.3219 of 1994, which
findings, by no stretch of imagination, are binding. Once the
order of learned Single Judge in previous round in W.P.No.3219
of 1994 is set aside by directing fresh consideration on merits,
the earlier findings pales into insignificance. Learned Single
Judge has failed to consider the merits on fresh adjudication and
erroneously based on the findings given in the previous round.
10. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 supported
the impugned common order and submitted that the industrial
dispute was referred way-back in the year 1992.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
12. The journey of this litigation shows that in the previous
round by the first award dated 23.09.1993, the Tribunal decided
the reference in favour of the workmen which got a stamp of
approval by the a learned Single Judge of this Court in
W.P.No.3219 of 1994, dated 21.01.2004. However, this order of
learned Single Judge could not sustain scrutiny in W.A.No.448
of 2004. The Supreme Court also did not disturb the findings of
the Division Bench in W.A.No.448 of 2004 and merely directed
the Tribunal to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as
possible, in any event, within a period of six months. In turn,
the impugned award dated 25.11.2010 was passed which
became subject matter of challenge in the present writ petitions.
13. We find substantial force in the argument of learned
counsel for the appellant/employer that the learned Single Judge
has erred in holding that all issues raised by the present
appellant/employer are answered in the earlier round of
litigation and therefore, he concurred with those findings. In our
opinion, since earlier order of learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.3219 of 1994 was set aside and the matter was
remanded to the Tribunal for "fresh consideration on merits",
there was no justification in basing the impugned common order
on the basis of findings given in W.P.No.3219 of 1994. For this
singular reason alone, the impugned common order of learned
Single Judge in both the W.P.Nos.33578 of 2010 and 4329 of
2011 cannot be permitted to stand.
14. Resultantly, both the Writ Appeals are disposed of by
setting aside the impugned common order dated 06.11.2023
passed in W.P.Nos.33578 of 2010 and 4329 of 2011. The
W.P.Nos.33578 of 2010 and 4329 of 2011 are restored to their
original numbers. Considering the history of litigation, we
request the learned Single Judge to make endeavour to decide
the matters afresh before ensuing summer vacation. It is made
clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of
the case. No costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
___________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
____________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 11.03.2025
Myk/Tsr
