Allowed

The Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society v. Dy. Commissioner of Labour

Telangana HC10 Jun 2013WP/16137/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of three appeals by an establishment against the Primary Authority. It ruled that while the Deputy Commissioner of Labour wrongly denied admission based on filing delay, the limitation period is validly computed from service of the order under general principles of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions and miscellaneous applications were disposed of; appeals entertained after finding the jurisdictional objection unsustainable.

The Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITIONS No. 16137, 16167 and 16204 OF 2013

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

All the three cases can be disposed of by this common order as they arose under an identical fact situation.

¶4

The writ petitioner herein is an establishment. Against the orders passed by the Primary Authority under the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, an appeal would lie before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the aforementioned Act. Accordingly, appeals were preferred within 30 days from the date of communication of the decision, but however, these appeals have not been numbered only on the ground that there was delay in filing them. It is appropriate to notice that the time for preferring an appeal cannot be computed from the date the order was passed by the authority, but however, it shall be computed from the date of affecting the service of such an order on the party concerned. When this principle was brought to the notice of the appellate authority Deputy Commissioner of Labour, he preferred to ignore the same on an untenable ground that such a principle has been evolved by the Supreme Court under the Arbitration Act, but not under the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act.

¶5

A quasi-judicial authority like that of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour should be aware that the legal principle would be the same whether it has arisen under the Arbitration Act or the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act. What is relevant is to apply the principle to the facts prevailing on record. The principle enunciated by the Supreme Court is that, period of limitation has got to be computed from the time the copy of the order is served on the party concerned, though in that particular case, copy of the award was tendered to the learned advocate representing the party. Therefore, I overrule the objection raised by the appellate authority Deputy Commissioner of Labour in entertaining the appeals preferred by the writ petitioner to

¶6

that extent and hold the objection raised by him as clearly unsustainable one.

¶7

Since none appears for the petitioner herein, I did not have the benefit of knowing as to whether the compensation awarded by the primary authority has already been deposited or not. Therefore, I will not be pronouncing any opinion on the said objection and it is for the appellate authority to consider the same.

¶8

All the three Writ Petitions stand disposed of with this order at the admission stage after hearing the learned Government Pleader for Labour. No costs.

¶9

Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall also stand disposed of.

¶10

NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J

¶11

10^th June 2013

¶12

ksld

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶14

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1040 of 2010

¶15

January 31, 2013

¶16

SP/KKM

The Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society v. Dy. Commissioner of Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society v. Dy. Commissioner of Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Wire and Cabnle (India) Pvt. LTd., Vs M/s. Controls and Schematics Ltd.

M/s/ Wire and Cable ( India ) Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/s. Controls and Schematics Limited

Shiv Prakash Bansal Vs Ankit Agarwal

The Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Vs Dy. Commissioner of Labour

Malladi Venkata Bhaskaramma [died] Vs Madhira Manikyamba

Man Mohan Singh Bhadauria Vs State of Andhra Pradesh