Dismissed

P. Jangaiah v. The Managing Director

Telangana HC8 Feb 2010WP/19321/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court observed that proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act are limited to execution and do not permit the Tribunal to adjudicate disputed questions of entitlement. While the Tribunal erred in doing so, the Court held that the petitioner must seek appropriate remedies regarding entitlement as the Tribunal's order did not warrant interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; the findings of the Industrial Tribunal on entitlement are held unsustainable but do not warrant interference.

P. Jangaiah Vs The Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUACY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO : 19321 of 2005

Between:

P. Jangaiah

.... PETITIONER

AND

1 The Managing Director, A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited, Lalapet, Hyderabad and another.

¶11

.....RESPONDENTS

¶12

The Court made the following :

¶13

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO :19321 of 2005

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

The writ petitioner-workman assails the order dated 10.12.2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in M.P.No.14 of 2003 in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act of 1947’).

¶17

The scope and jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 is limited. Such proceedings are in the nature of execution proceedings and in exercise of this jurisdiction it is not open to the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate disputed questions as to the very entitlement of the workman to the amount claimed. I had taken this view in Writ Petition No.144 of 2004 by order dated 5.12.2009. The order under challenge in this writ petition discloses that the Industrial Tribunal entered into such disputed questions of entitlement, but on facts held against the workman.

¶18

However, in the light of the opinion expressed by me in my order dated 5.12.2009 in W.P.No.144 of 2004, the Industrial Tribunal was in error in entering into the issue of entitlement of the workman to the amount claimed by him in a petition filed under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947. That being so, irrespective of the validity and correctness of the adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal on facts, such exercise of jurisdiction under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 is unsustainable. The order of the Industrial Tribunal denying relief to the workman therefore does not warrant any interference in this writ petition. However, the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal on the basis of such adjudication, being in excess of jurisdiction, are

¶19

equally unsustainable and are not binding on the petitioner. It is left open to the petitioner to invoke such remedies as are available to him in law insofar as his disputed entitlement to the benefit claimed is concerned.

¶20

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶21

______________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar Dated:8.2.2010 Nn.

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶23

WRIT PETITION NO : 19321 of 2005

¶24

08.02.2010

P. Jangaiah v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Jangaiah v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Badwel Depot, Vs The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court

Gummadi Sambasiva Rao Vs The Presiding Officer

K. Suresh Vs The Presiding Officer

Sandaiah (Died) LRs. Vs The Managing Director

P. Laxmaiah, Vs The Managing Director

Smt. G. Laxmi Vs The Managing Director