Allowed

M/S Super Spinning Mills, Hindupur v. the Chairman-Cum-Presiding Officer & Another

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Nov 2024WP/15710/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A mill challenged a Labour Court order directing it to decide dues claimed by a workman for salary and subsistence allowance under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court held the procedure was improper, as the court should have computed the money value of the benefit, set aside the proceedings, and allowed the writ petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Labour Court proceedings in M.P.No.23 of 2008 (order dated 15.03.2011) set aside; writ petition allowed without costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

M/S Super Spinning Mills, Hindupur Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

.

¶3

. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

Between:

¶6

M/s. Super Spinning Mills, Hindupur, 'B' Unit, Kotnur, Hindupur, Anantapur dist. Rep by its Unit Head Sri K.Somasekhara Varam, S/o Sri Satyanarayana Raju, aged about 43 years.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Hon'ble Industrial^{Tribunal-cum-} Labour Court, Anantapur.

¶9

Mr.M.Narasimhappa, S/o Hanumanthappa,, Vangalapalli (Civil) Beechiganapalli P.O., Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur Dist.

¶10

...RESPONDENTS ^

¶11

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction^{inthenatureofWrit} of Certiorari by calling for records in M.P.No.23 of^{2008anddeclarethe} Order dated 15.03.2011, on the file of Labour Court, Anantapur, as null, void and illegal and consequently quash the impugned Order^{orotherwisethe} petitioner herein will suffer grave and irreparable^loss.

¶12

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2011fWPMP. NO: 18821 OF 2011)

¶13

Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High

T /

/ /

Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings^{inOrderdt.15.03.2011} passed in M.P.No.23 of 2008 on the file of the Labour court, Anantapur > including execution pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SUDHAKARA RAO AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A HANUMANTHA REDDY

¶20

The Court made the following; ORDER

¶21

^PHC010048022011

¶22

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3457] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶24

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 15710/2011

¶27

Between: IVI/s Super Spinning Mills, Hindupur

¶28

...PETITIONER

¶29

AND

¶30

f he Chairmancumpresiding Officer Another ...RESPONDENT(S) and Others

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶32

1.SUDHAKARA RAO AMBATI

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶34

1 GP FOR LABOUR

¶35

2.A HANUMANTHA REDDY

¶36

l-pe Court made the following Order:

¶37

The petitioner is challenging the order passed in M.P.No.23

¶38

Qf 2008 by the respondent. The respondent, vide its^order dated 15.03.2011, directed the petitioner herein to^{decidetheissue} of the 2^^ respondent without considering disciplinary^proceedings, jf anyFurther, the 1®* respondent directed the petitioner^todecide the issue and pass orders within a period of two months. The 2 nd pgspondent sought payment of monthly salary from the period

¶39

¶40

HN, J W.P.No.l5710_2011

¶41

01.11.1995 to 01.05.1996 and subsistence allowance from the period 01.05.1996 to 01.09.2008. The 2"^ respondent claims an amount of Rs.3,42,000/as due payment from the petitioner.

¶42

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 2"^ respondent had earlier filed I. D. No.378 of 2003 seeking a direction for reinstatement into service. The Labour Court, Anantapur, vide its award dated 09.04.2007 disallowed the claim of the 2"^^ respondent. In the said award, the Labour Court observed that the claim for reinstatement could not be considered because no order of termination had been issued to the petitioner.

¶43

On that premise, the maintainability of the I.D before the Tribunal was upheld and the Labour Court.

¶44

The 2""^ respondent has filed the impugned proceedings under section 33(c)(2) of the I.D Act to determine the amount due. The learned counsel for the petitioner cites the following provisions under Section 33(c)(2) reads as follows: 33(c)(2): where any workman is entitled to receive from the employee 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

¶45

¶46

HN, J W.P.No.l5710_2011

¶47

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 under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government [within a period not exceeding three months’’.

¶48

The Labour Court in the impugned proceedings has been carried away by the submissions of the 2"'^ respondent and observed that the 2"*^ respondent would be entitled^{tosubsistence} allowance, as an enquiry was pending against him.

¶49

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amounts and contributions should only have been claimed^under Section 33(c)(2) of the I.D. Act and the attempt by the 2 nd respondent to claim speculative amounts should not have been decided by the Labour Court. The learned counsel placed^reliance on the following judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court:

¶50

Bombay Chemical Industries Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and others\

¶51

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak^and others^.

¶52

The Central Bank of India Ltd., Vs. P.S.Rajagopalan^and others^.

¶53

(2002) 5 see 629 ^(1995) 1 see 235 ^ AIR 1964 Se 743

¶54

¶55

¶56

HN, J W.P.No.15710 2011

¶57

This Court, while admitting the writ petition granted interim stay vide order dated 10.06.2011.

¶58

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the 2"^^ respondent was habitually absent and had absconded from his duty on account of his involvement in a criminal case, which was registered as SC.No.155 of 1997. It is also submitted that the same was not brought to the notice of the petitioner herein and thus, the petitioner cannot be made liable for nd any amounts due to the 2 respondent’s willful absence from duty.

¶59

That apart, the Labour Court could not have determined the amount under Section 33(c)(2) and the Labour Court should have invoked Section 33(c)(2) for computing the money value of the benefit the 2^*^ respondent was claiming No such procedure was followed by the Labour Court. Accordingly, this Court hereby set aside the impugned proceedings.

¶60