Dismissed

Azam Jahi Mills.a.U.N.T.Corp.Ltd. v. the Asst.Commissioner of LABOUR.AND2 Other

Telangana HC14 Jul 2008WA/1064/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal. The judgment declined to examine the merits of the dispute regarding the Assistant Commissioner of Labour's jurisdiction because the appellants failed to implead the specific workers who filed the original gratuity claims as necessary respondents.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties.

Azam Jahi Mills.a.U.N.T.Corp.Ltd. Vs the… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI

¶2

& THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶3

WRIT APPEAL No:1064 OF 2001

¶4

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari)

¶5

The present writ appeal is preferred by the appellant aggrieved by an order, dated 26.2.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.11959 of 1990.

¶6

The appellant herein is the writ petitioner. The relief sought for in the writ petition was to declare that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Government of A.P., Warangal-1^st respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate any petition for payment of gratuity against the petitioner-Mills under the provisions of the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 on the ground that the petitioner-Mills, which is a private company, was nationalized under the provisions of the Sick Textile Undertakings and was transferred and vested absolutely in National Textile Corporation, which is wholly owned by the Central Government. While so, many of the employees of the petitioner-Mill approached the 1^st respondent under the Act in P.G.Nos.45 to 51/89; 89/1989, 1 to 3, 7 and 12/1990. According to the petitioner, the central Government alone can entertain the petitions filed under Section 7 of the Act and therefore, the 1^st respondent cannot entertain the claim petitions filed by various workers.

¶7

On the other hand, the learned Government pleader contended that if the petitioner-Mill is an establishment under Section 2 (a)(i)(a) or (b) of the Act having branches in more than one State, then only the authority appointed by the Central Government is the competent authority to entertain the application, but the petitionerMill is a factory registered under the Factories Act and its license was granted by the State Government and therefore, it falls under Section 2 (a)(ii) of the Act and therefore, the 1^st respondent has rightly came to the conclusion that it had jurisdiction to entertain the applications.

¶8

Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, the learned Single Judge having observed that the workers, who are working in the factory made their

¶9

claims, but they are not attached to an establishment of a factory and in those circumstances, the residuary clause i.e., Section 2 (a)(ii) attracts and therefore, the 1^st respondent was right in holding that it had jurisdiction to entertain the petitions, dismissed the writ petition. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal has been preferred.

¶10

Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader and perused the material available on record.

¶11

On a perusal of the material available on record, it is apparent that one Laxmaiah and 13 others filed the applications seeking payment of gratuity. But it is very curious to note that none of the applicants are arrayed as respondents either in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge or in this appeal. In view of nonjoinder of necessary parties, both the writ petition and the appeal are liable dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, without examining the merits of the petition.

¶12

Accordingly, WA is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶13

Justice T. Meena Kumari

¶14

Justice Ramesh Ranganathan

¶15

Date: 15^th July, 2008

¶16

Nn.

¶17

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI

¶18

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶20

WRIT APPEAL No:1064 OF 2001

¶21

(JUDGMENT delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari)

¶22

15.7.2008

Azam Jahi Mills.a.U.N.T.Corp.Ltd. v. the Asst.Commissioner of LABOUR.AND2 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Azam Jahi Mills.a.U.N.T.Corp.Ltd. v. the Asst.Commissioner of LABOUR.AND2 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rep. Secretary-Sri G.Tirumala Rao. Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Sri Durga Cotton Traders, 25-2-22, G.T.Road, Guntur, Vs Assistant Commissioner (C.T.) (Vmu-Ii)

S. Rajendhar Reddy, Vs The Secretary

The Secretary to Govt., Vs a.Chandresekhar Reddy

Secretary , Education Dept, Vs K.Varaha Narasimhulu

M/s.N.Janardhan Rao, Works Contractor, Nandyal Vs The Additional Commisisoner of Commercial Taxes (Legal)