M. Rajulamma & 5 Others, Vs Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Vizag & 6 Others

“to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Order dated 30.04.2004 passed in M.P. No.35/2002 on the file of the Industrial tribunal cum Labour Court Visakhapatnam the 1^st respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and ultra vires to the provisons of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also the mandatory provisions of the I.D. Act, 1947”

¶16

2. Petitioners claim to have worked in the 2^nd respondent establishment

¶17

from 1972 till 1992. The 2^nd respondent had closed the Oil Mill in the year 1992. The petitioners claim that the said closure was without prior intimation to the competent authority and that the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was not followed.

¶18

2

¶19

CGRJ WP_19149_2004

¶20

3. Further they claim that though the Oil Mill was running with profits, the management had decided to close the factory, with an assurance that it would be reopened after some time. Petitioners, having waited for the factory to be reopened, maintained restraint in espousing their right. Ultimately, having realized that the Oil Mill was not going to be reopened, they preferred an M.P.No.35 of 2002, before the 1^st respondent i.e. Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court, Visakhapatnam, claiming an amount of Rs.7,87,919/- towards arrears of gratuity, compensation, encashment of leave, and interest. The said claim has been instituted under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶21

4. The claim came to be opposed by the 2^nd respondent by filing a counter. The management had denied that there exists an employer-employee relationship and that petitioners were workmen within the meaning of the Act and further it was also pleaded that there were no bona fides in the claim, as admittedly, the claim came to be instituted after 10 years of the closure of the factory, even according to the petitioners.

¶22

5. In support of the claim, the petitioners themselves got examined as WW1 to WW10 and marked exhibits Ex.W1 and Ex.W2 and on behalf of the 2^nd respondent, MW1 came to be examined and no documents were marked. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, has ultimately came to the conclusion that the petitioners could not establish that they were engaged to work with the 2^nd respondent-Oil Mill

¶23

3

¶24

CGRJ WP_19149_2004

¶25

and also that the claim since being instituted nearly after 10 years, without proper explanation, was only to cause inconvenience to the 2^nd respondent for making undue gain and accordingly rejected the M.P. Assailing the same, present Writ Petition is filed.

¶26

6. Heard Mr. Josyula Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Kotha Naga Surya Rao, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶27

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence, WW1 in particular and the oral and documentary evidence of the petitioners, in proper perspective, which clearly established that they were working with the 2^nd respondent and further that the Tribunal has committed an error in considering that mere institution of claim after 10 years would disentitle the petitioners to make such a claim, inasmuch as there was no such bar in the statute, at the time of disposal of the M.P. in that regard, therefore, the order clearly suffers from illegality and hence needs to be set aside and the claim be allowed accordingly.

¶28

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondent-Oil Mill, however, tried to support the order passed by the Tribunal by contending that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that there was no employeremployee relationship and as the claim was instituted after 10 years, the same was unsustainable. He further contended that since the claim was instituted by the petitioners, it was for them to establish that there was employer-employee relationship and the petitioners were required to have reasonably pleaded the

¶29

4

¶30

CGRJ WP_19149_2004

¶31

causes for such delay in instituting the claim, in the absence of the same, the findings recorded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse in any manner.

¶32

9. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions of the respective counsels.

¶33

10. The petitioners claim to have worked with the 2^nd respondent from 1972 to 1992. It was stated that the 2^nd respondent had closed down the unit in the year 1992. In order to establish that petitioners did work with the 2^nd respondent during the aforesaid period, they had spoken for themselves besides marking Exhibits Ex.W1 and Ex.W2. Exhibits, Ex.W1 and Ex.W2 are the documents which were stated to have been issued by the Chairperson of Municipal Council, Tuni and Sarpanch of Chepuru Gram Panchayat respectively.

¶34

11. The Tribunal, while considering the aforesaid evidence, has recorded a finding that both these material documents were not praiseworthy, inasmuch as the scribe of these documents and the writings of the petition, filed before it, appeared to be one and the same. Therefore, no credence was given to the same.

¶35

12. Even otherwise, the aspect as to whether petitioners were engaged with 2^nd respondent or not, can only be established by any of the documents which were issued by the 2^nd respondent itself during the course of employment, such as, wage registers, payment details, bank details, etc. In the absence of

¶36

5

¶37

CGRJ WP_19149_2004

¶38

producing any of such evidence, solely basing on Exhibits, Ex.W1 and Ex.W2, it cannot be concluded that they did work with 2^nd respondent. Aforesaid finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, in the opinion of this Court does not suffer from any perversity.

¶39

13. Further, the Tribunal has also tried to rescind the issue by considering that in another application i.e. M.P.No.34 of 2002, which was instituted by similarly situated persons, claiming to be engaged by 2^nd respondent, were enrolled with P.F. department. The Tribunal has justified the aforesaid conclusion on the count that unlike the petitioners in M.P.No.34 of 2002, petitioners in the present case were not figuring in the P.F. records, therefore, they were never engaged with 2^nd respondent.

¶40

14. Finally, coming to the aspect of belated filing of claim, after a gap of 10 years from the closure of the factory, and in the absence of any evidence on record to show that petitioners had been engaging with 2^nd respondentmanagement for ascertaining their due, much less gratuity, compensation, leave encashment, etc., as claimed in the present Writ Petition, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that no justification or valid reasons were shown to condone such inordinate delay.

¶41

15. Though learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the statute does not provide for any specific period of limitation for preferring such claims, even if the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the claim on that count, this Court is not persuaded with the aforesaid submission for the reason that, even

¶42

6

¶43

CGRJ WP_19149_2004

¶44

in the absence of any specific period of limitation being prescribed under the statute, the petitioners were required to in the least demonstrate before the Tribunal as to what effective steps were undertaken before the institution of the claim causing such inordinate delay and there should be explanation in the petition. Therefore, in the absence of any of the same and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the claim made beyond 10 years required no interference.

¶45

16. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in this Writ Petition and the same hereby stands dismissed.

¶46

No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this case, shall stand closed.

¶47

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J.

¶48

SSN

M. Rajulamma & 5 Others, v. Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Vizag & 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Rajulamma & 5 Others, v. Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Vizag & 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Prof. M.V. Subba Rao, Vs Andhra University Its Registrar

P. Kanakasundara Rao Vs State of A.P. Secretary, Education Dept, & 2 Others

The Nellore District Food Corporation of India Godowns Mutta Vs Food Corporation of India

Nellore District Agnikula Kshatriya Sangham Vs the Dist. Colelctor

K.Atcha Rao, E.G.District & 13 Others Vs Ind.Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam & Anr.

P.Srinivas, Nellore District Vs Apsrtc., Rep.by M.D., Musheerabad, Hyderabad & 2 Others