Allowed

Nandipati Veeraiah v. Bommidala Brothers Limited

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Jan 2024WP/20122/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A workman retrenched in 1986 sought payment under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act after a Tribunal held his retrenchment invalid under Section 25F. The High Court found the Labour Court's rejection order unreasoned and unsustainable, set it aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 07.04.2016 in M.P.No.9/2011 set aside; matter remanded to Labour Court, Guntur, to pass orders afresh; no costs.

Nandipati Veeraiah Vs Bommidala… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 20122 OF 2niR

¶6

Between:

¶7

Nandipati Veeraiah, S/o. Sambaiah, Aged 60 years, Occ. Employee of Bommidala Brothers Limited, R/o. Uppalapadu Post, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District ...PETITIONER

¶8

AND 1. Bomm^ala Brothers Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Mangalagiri Road, Guntur. ^ 2. The Labour Court, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶9

...RESPONDENTS

¶10

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in declaring the order dt.7.4.2016 in M.P. No.9 of 91 of 2 respondent Court as arbitrary and violative^ofArticle14& provisions of I.D. Act more particularly Sec.25- HH and 33C of I.D. Act by setting aside the same and consequently^directthe 1®* respondent to pay the amounts as claimed in M.P.No.9 of 2011 on the file of the Labour Court with interest @ 12% per annum grant proceedings.

¶11

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 24706 OF 2nifi)

¶12

staffed circumstances s ated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to expidite the final hearing of the writ petition urgency of the matter as wages were not paid to me from October, 2000 onwards.

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. M PITCHAIAH

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR (AP)

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRI. SSN MOORTHY

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.20122 OF 2016

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

¶22

"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.9/2011 on the file of the 2nd Respondent Court as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 86 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 1 St respondent to pay the amounts as claimed in M.P.No.9 of 2011 on the file of the Labour Court with interest @ 12% per annum grant proceedings and pass such other order or orders."

¶23

The relief sought for in the present Writ Petition^issimilar to the Writ Petition No.20122 of 2016, which is allowed today, i.e., on 02.01.2024, remanding the matter to the Labour Court, Guntur, and the parties in both the Writ Petitions^arealsoone and the same.

¶24

¶25

Hence, following the said order in W.P.No.20066 of²⁰¹⁶ and for the reasons recorded therein, the present Writ^Petition No.20122 of 2016 is also allowed in terms thereof, by setting aside the order dated 07.04.2016 in M.P.No.9 of 2011 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur-2«d 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^Courtin the case of Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P.S.Rajagopalan^Etc.K Office to enclose a copy of the order in W.P.No.20066^of2016.

¶26

Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is allowed. There

¶27

shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any in

¶29

this case, shall stand closed.

¶30

//TRUE COPY//

¶31

SDI- P VINOD KUMAR ] ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶32

To,

¶33

The Managing Director, Bommidala Brothers Limited, Mangalagiri Road, Guntur.

¶34

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur, Guntur^District.

¶35

One CC to SRI. M PITCHAIAH Advocate [OPUC]

¶36

Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR (AP), High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶37

One CC to SSN MOORTHY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶38

Three CD Copies

¶39

(Along with a copy of the order in W.P.No.20066 of 2016)

Csb MBT

HIGH COURT

DATED: 02/01/2024

ORDER

WP.No.20122 of 2016

ANO/y;^
OV,
g 13 JUN 20?'|
Co/'
Current Section .
^SPATCV^^

¶46

ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶47

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶48

WRIT PETITION No.20066 OF 2016

¶49

ORDER;

¶50

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

¶51

"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 2’^^ Respondent Court as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 86 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 amd consequently direct the pt respondent to pay the amounts as claimed in M.P.No.l of 2009 on the file of the Labour Court with interest @ 12% per annum grant proceedings and pass such other order or orders."

¶52

The present Writ Petition is filed to set aside the order dated 07.04.2016 in M.P.No.l of 2009 on the file of the 2’^^ respondent, i.e.. Labour Court, Guntur, and consequently, to direct the l^t respondent to pay the amount as claimed in M.P.No.l of 2009 with interest @ 12% per annum.

¶53

¶54

The petitioner herein has joined as Clerk on 04.09.1980 i n the 1st respondent-industry and worked upto 04.11.1986 on which date, the petitioner was retrenched from service by the 1st respondent. The petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute, vide I.D.No.648 of 1991, assailing the retrenchment made by the 1st respondent herein and the said I.D. was allowed by^orderdated 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 Acf) and the same is not legally valid.

¶55

Assailing the said order, the 1st respondent has filed Writ Petition No.20169 of 2000 before the composite High^Courtand 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.

¶56

Be that as it may, after dismissal of the Writ Petition on withdrawal by the 1st respondent herein, the petitioner^herein

¶57

¶58

has filed M.P.No.Ol of 2009 in I.D.No.648 of 1991 under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act seeking a direction to the l^t respondent to pay an amount of Rs.3,39,709/- with interest at 12% per annum from the l^t respondent herein. The Labour Court has^dismissed the said Miscellaneous Petition observing thus:

¶59

"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."

¶60

¶61

Assailing the said order, the present Writ Petition^cameto be filed for the aforesaid relief.

¶62

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that^the termination of the petitioner itself is contrary to^Section25Fof 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)^oftheIDAct.

¶63

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite issuance of notice, the 1®* respondent refused the^saidnotice. Hence, it is deemed to be served.

¶64

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:

¶65

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

¶66

¶67

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."

¶68

As seen from the said provision, when a workman is reinstated into service by award of a Labour Court^orTribunal, the workman is entitled for the wages recovered in^themanner 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^ofthe 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,^andifthe appropriate Government is satisfied that any money^issodue,it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the manner as^anarrearof land revenue.

¶69

¶70

IF*

¶71

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^amountof 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.

¶72

Under the above said provision, a workman is entitled^to receive any money from the employer and then he is^entitledto raise a dispute before the Labour Court. The Labour Court in the award dated 07.04.2016, vide M.C.No.Ol 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^ofthe application under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act are not allowing the Court to entertain the petition considering the facts and circumstances involved.

¶73

¶74

¶75

The Labour Court has passed the award observing thus:

¶76

"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."

¶77

The other finding that it is delivered by the Labour^Courtis 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.

¶78

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.Kokkerh

¶79

(2003) 4 see 364

¶80

¶81

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit^that present petition under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act is maintaiinable and he relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P.S.Rajagopalan^ for the proposition that Section 33C(2) of the ID Act is maintainable.

¶82

As the order impugned is unsustainable for the reasons discussed in the above paragraphs, this Court directs^theLabour Court to pass appropriate orders after considering the judgment of the Apex Court in P.S.Rajagopalan’s case (2 supra).

¶83

Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the finding of the^Labour Court vide order dated 07.04.2016 in M.P.No.l of 2009 is unsustainable and it is liable to be set aside.

¶84

Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 07.04.2016 in M.P.No.l^of2009 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur-2ri'i 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

¶85

^ AIR 1964 SC 743

¶86

¶87

Court in the case of Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P.S.Rajagopalan

¶88

Etc.3. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶89

As a sequel, interlocutoiy applications, pending if any in this case, shall stand closed.

¶90

JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶91