Disposed

The Managing Director v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC27 Mar 2023WP/7539/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions filed by a hotel management challenging the non-transfer of labour appeal proceedings from Rajamahendravaram to Kakinada, alleging arbitrary action, delay, and threats to their counsel. The High Court declined to examine the merits, directing instead that the Assistant Commissioner dispose of the pending appeals within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 4th respondent to dispose of the appeals within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

The Managing Director Vs the State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON’BLE SWIT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 7539 & 7556 OF 2023

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 7539 OF 2023

¶10

Between:

¶11

The Managing Director, M/s Manoharamma Hotel Investments Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its General Manager, Rashid Ahmed, S/o Nazir Ahmed, Hotel Anand Regency, D.No.26-3-47, Jampeta, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.

¶12

...Petitioner/Opposite Party No. 1

¶13

AND

¶14

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Labour & Employment, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati.

¶15

2. The Commissioner of labour, D.No. 33-7-6 & 33-7-14, Papayya Street, Moghulrajpuram, Vijayawada, NTR District.

¶16

The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada East Godavari District 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.

¶17

The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada, Kakinada District. 6. Karu Venkata Ramana, S/o. Maha Lakshmi Naidu; R/o.D.No. 26-10-6/1, Kambala Cheruvu, Kambalapeta, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 .of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ , direction or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not withdrawing the proceedings bearing A.P.S.E.No. 06 of 2019 on the file of The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rajamahendravaram and transferring the same to The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada as illegal, arbitrary, irrational and contrary to Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India and consequently withdraw the proceedings bearing A.P.S.E.No. 06 of 2019 on the file of The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District and transfer the same to The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada, Kakinada District and pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deerh fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶21

Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in A.P.S.E.No. 06 of 2019 on the file of The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rajamahendravaram, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass such order or orders as it may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI. SIVA RAMA KRISHNA KOLLURU

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 : GP FOR LABOUR

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 :--------------------

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO: 7556 OF 2023

¶26

Between:

¶27

The Managing Director, M/s Manoharamma Hotel Investments Pvt. Ltd. Rep bv its Manager, Rashid Ahmed, S/o Nazir Ahmed, Hotel Anand Regency, u.No.2b-3-47, Jampeta, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District

¶28

...Petitioner/Opposite party No. 1

¶29

Tu o and

¶30

1. / 5® a’ ^®c:retary. Labour and Employment,

¶31

Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati.

¶32

1. The Cornmissioner of labour, D.No. 33-7-6 & 33-7-14, Papayya Street Moghulrajpuram, Vijayawada, NTR District.

¶33

1. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada East Godavari District 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.

¶34

I: Jj2®^'8ta'SCommission®rof Labour, Kakinada, Kakinada District. USA Rama Rao, S/o. Late Veerappa, R/o.D.No. 26-13-1, Pulla vaari Street Kambalapeta, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District

¶35

...RESPONDENTS

¶36

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not withdrawing the proceedings bearing A.P.S.E.No. 05 of 2019 on the file of The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rajamahendravaram and transferring the same to The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada as illegal arbitrary irrational and contrary to Article 19(1 )(g) of Constitution of India and consequently withdraw the proceedings bearing A.P.S.E.No. 05 of 2019 on the file of The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District and transfer the same to The Assistant Commissioner of Labour Kakinada Kakinada District.

¶37

¶38

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶39

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in A.P.S.E.No. 05 of 2019 on the file of The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rajamahendravaram, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass such order or orders as it may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI. SIVA RAMA KRISHNA KOLLURU

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 : GP FOR LABOUR

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 :

¶42

The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER

¶43

¶44

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶45

WRIT PETITION Nos. 7539 and 7556 of 2023

¶46

COMMON ORDER:

¶47

These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the

¶48

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶49

W.P.No. 7539 of 2023

¶50

“...to issue a Writ, direction, or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not withdrawing the proceedings bearing A.P.S.E No.06 of 2019 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rajamahendravaram and transferring the same to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada as illegal, arbitrary, irrational and contrary to Article 19(l)(g) of Constitution of India and consequently withdraw the proceedings bearing A.P.S.E.No.06 of 2019 on the file of The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District and transfer the same to The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada, Kakinada District and pass..."

¶51

W.P.NO. 7556 of 2023

¶52

“...to issue a Writ, direction or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not withdrawing the proceedings bearing A.P.S.E No.05 of 2019 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rajamahendravaram and transferring the same to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada as illegal, arbitrary, irrational and contrary to Article 19(l)(g) of Constitution of India and consequently withdraw the proceedings bearing A.P.S.E.No.05 of 2019 on the file of The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District and transfer the same to The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada, Kakinada District and pass..."

¶53

¶54

2. As the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same, this court deems it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions by a common order.

¶55

The petitioner/Hotel Anand Residency is running hotel business with lodging and boarding faculties at Rajamahendravaram, which is part of M/s Manoharamma . r Hotel Investments Private Limited and is a company incorporated under the Companies Act on 10.05.1991. During the month of Decembesr, 2018 the 6* respondent, who is working as waiter and five (5) other employees, colluding with the workers belonging to Asara Union, started agitation against the petitioner agency by demanding more wages.

¶56

WhUe the issue is under consideration by the Management, the respondent in these cases absented from duties. Therefore, 6^^ respondent in these cases was terminated from his services and the dispute was carried to the Additional Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada, who referred the same to die Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam vide proceedings No. F/2493/2020 dated 31.01.2020, which was numbered as I.D.No. 40 of 2022. Pending thg said ID, the 6th respondent in these cases

¶57

¶58

have filed A.P.S.E Nos. 6 and 5 of 2019 respectively, before the HonTjle Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rajamahendravaram, by . invoking Section 48 of A.P. Shops and Establishments Act.

¶59

5. It is further case of the petitioner agency that when the learned counsel for the petitioner Agency was representing before the 4*^ respondent, the learned counsels for the 6**^ respondent in these cases accompanied with some other persons threatened the learned counsel for the petitioner/Agency and not allowed him to proceed with the arguments in the Court and interfered with the court proceedings.

¶60

6. The grievance of the petitioner/Agency is that though the petitioner agency has complained the same before the 4®* respondent on many occasions, the 4^ respondent has not acted upon it, and therefore, requested to transfer the present A.P.S.E Nos. 6 and 5 of 2019 from the file of Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rajamahendravaram to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada, while relying upon Section 48 of the A.P. Shops and Establishment Act 1988, which is extracted below:-

¶61

4’ ■

¶62

Appointment of authority to hear and decide appeals arising out of termination of services. -

¶63

(1) (a) The Chief Inspector may, by notification appoint for any area as may be specified therein, any authority to hear and decide appeals arising out of the termination of service of employees under section 47:

¶64

Provided that the Chief Inspector may on admmistrative grounds transfer any appeal arising in the temtonal jurisdiction of any authority to’ the file of another authority for dispos^, and such authority to transferred by the Chief Inspector shall dispose of the appeal so transferred.

¶65

(b) Any employee whose services have been terminated may appeal to the authority concerned within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed.

¶66

(2) The. appellate authority ihay, after inquiry in the prescribed manner, dismiss the appeal or direct the remstatement of the employee with or without wages for the period he was kept out of employment or direct payment of compensation without reinstatement or grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case:

¶67

Provided that the. .authority concerned shall wiAout delay, hear such appeal and pass such orders months from the date of receipt

¶68

Provided further that where any such authority considers it necessaiy or expedient so to do, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as it may think fit; Provided also that no proceedings before such authority shall lapse merely on the grounds that any period specified in this completed” without such proceedings being

¶69

(3) Against any decision of the authority under sub section (2), a second appeal shall lie to such authority as may be notified by the Government within thirty days rom the date of communication of the decision and the decision of such authority on such appeal shall be final and binding on both the employer and the employee and

¶70

¶71

■i

¶72

shall be given effect to within such time as may be specified in the order of that Authority:

¶73

• Provided that the. second appeal shall not be entertained unless the employer deposits the entire amount of back wages. as ordered by the appellate authority under sub-section (2) or the amount of compensation ordered as the case may be:

¶74

Provided further that if the second appeal is against the order of reinstatement given by the appellate authority under sub-section (2), the employee shall be entitled to wages last drawn by him during the pendency of the proceedings before the appellate authority.

¶75

(4) Where in any case, an appellate authority by its award directs reinstatement of any employee and the employer challenges such award in any Court of Law, the employer shall be liable , to pay such employee during the pendency of such proceedings, full wages last drawn by him, if the employee had not been employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit by such employee had been filed to that effect in such Court:

¶76

Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that such employee has been employed and has been receiving remuneration during any such period or part thereof the Court shall order that no wage shall be payable under this section for such period or part, as the case may be.

¶77

(5) Any amount directed to be paid under this section may be recovered -

¶78

(a) if the authority appointed under sub-section (1) is a Magistrate, by the authority, as if it were a fine imposed by him as Magistrate ; and

¶79

(b) if the authority is not a Magistrate, by any Magistrate, to whom the authority makes application in this behalf as if it were a fine imposed by such Magistrate.

¶80

7. As per Section 48, the Chief Inspector, on administrative grounds, may transfer any appeal arising in

¶81

¶82

the territorial jurisdiction of any authority to the file of another authority for disposal, and such authority to whom the appeal is transferred by the Chief Inspector shall dispose of the appeal so transferred, if at all there are any criminal proceedings initiated against the 6>s respondent in these cases.

¶83

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner/Agency has reiterated the facts mentioned in these writ petitions and requested to pass appropriate orders.

¶84

Leaned Government Pleader for Labour nr has produced a copy of the instructions of the 4th respondent vide R.C.No. A/316/2023 dated 17.03.2023, 23, stating that on 27.09.2022, while the applicants in the batch of cases i.e., A.P.S.E Nos.l to 6 of 2022 were representing certain issues to the 4* respondent authoriiy, the counsel of Opposite Parties has direcUy entered into arguments with the applicants, which has become the cause of incident and further stated that the junior counsel should have either urged before the 4«. respondent authority or asked the applicants’ counsel, who was present at that time,- but; Ke has exchanged his arguments directly with the workers and invited the trouble.

I -.A. '

•i

which was unwarranted. However, it is submitted that none has threatened the junior counsel, before the 4th respondent authority, at any point of time and the 4* respondent has I only warned both the parties not to resort to such arguments in the court and calmed up the issue.

¶90

In view of the same, instead of going into the merits, this court feels it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions by directing the 4* respondent to dispose of the appeals as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶91

¶92

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶93

To,

¶94

Sd/- A VIJAYABABU ASSISTANTREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTiersf^FFICER

¶95

2- labour, D.No. 33-7-6 & 33-7-14 Paoawa StrPPt !l°gt!y*'’®JPU'’am, Vijayawada, NTR District ^apayya btreet, 4 Thl Godavari District District * Commissioner of Labour, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari 6 Kakinada, Kakinada District.

I:
PV
MSR

HIGH COURT

DATED:27/03/2023

u ’ 3 SEP 2023

COMMON ORDER

WP.No.7539 & 7556 of 2023

¶102

DISPOSING THE WP’s WITHOUT COSTS

The Managing Director v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J v Narasimhamurthy Vs the State of Ap

J v Narasimhamurthy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Althuru Sudhakar Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

J.V. Narasimhamurthy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Babu Rao, Vs The Executive Engineer

Satluri Manjula, Prakasam Dist Vs Chairman, S.B.I., Maharastra and 4 Ot