This common order dismissed writ petitions challenging a Labour Court award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The High Court upheld the award, upholding the LC's findings on coercion and deeming the amount reasonable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3383 ]
I il
HIGH COURT FOR THESTATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OFDECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMINARAYANAALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION NOS: 22540, 22579.22617AND 22709 0F 2017
W.P.N o.2254O ol 2O'17
Between:
Star Shoe Mall,, Apartnership firm, represented by its partner, Mrs.TaranumFatima, wife of Arshad Huisain Khan, Agedabout 35 years, resident oI 5181644 and645, Abids X Roads, Abids, Hyderabad.
.....PETITIONER
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition Under Article 226 ot theconstitution of lndia prayingthat in the circumstances stated in theaffidavit filed therewith,the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order ordirection, preferablya writ in the nature of certiorari, calling for therecords relating to Award daley!31o212o17 made in l.D. No.9B of 2013 onthe file of the 3'd respondfntas wellas G.O.Rt.No.329 LabourEmployment Trainingand Factories (Labour) Department dated.10/05/2017 andquash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violativeof Article 14 of the constitution oflndia and contrary to the provisions of Thelndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 andpending disposalof the above writ Petition suspendthe operation of the Award daled23lo2t2o'1 7 made in l.D. No.98of 2013 on the file
of the 3rd respondent as well asG.O.Rt.No.329 LabourEmployment Training and Factories (Labour) Department dated101O512O17.
|.A.NO:1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO:27737 OF20171
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, theHigh Court maybe pleasedto suspend the operation of the Awarddaled 2310212017 made in l.D. No'98 of 2013 on the file of the 3rd respondent aswell asG.O.Rt.No.329Labour Employment Training and Factories(Labour) Department dated1010512017 pending disposal of the above writ petition.
r.A.NO 10F 2021
Between:
Md. Amjad Ali, Son of Md.Yousuf Ali, C/o S.PrabhakarReddy,F-3, H.No.16-10-212, R.K.Residency, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad013.
....PETITIONER
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition Under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, theHighCourt maybe pleasedto vacate the interim order dated 0210812017in l.A.No.'1 of 2017in W.P.No.22540 ot 2017 in the interest ofjustice.
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1& 3:GP FOR LABOUR
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI S.PRABHAKARREDDY,ADVOCATE FOR SRI K.LAXMAN
W.P.NO: 22579 OF 2017
Between:
Star Shoe Mall, Apartnership firm, represented by itspa(ner, Mrs.TaranumFatima, wife of Arshad Hussain Khan, Aged about 35years, resident ot5181644 and 645, Abids X Roads, Abids, Hyderabad.
.....PETITIONER
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfiledtherewith,the High Court maybe pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction,preferably aWrit in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the recordsrelating to Award dated 2310212017 made in LD. No.96 of 2013 on the file of the3'd respondentas well as G.O.Rt.No.327 Labour EmploymentTrainingand Factories(Labour) Department dated 10/05/2017 andquash thesame as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia and contraryto the provisions of Thelndustrial Disputes Acl, 1947 andpending disposalof the aboveWrit Petition suspend the operation of the Award daled231O212017made in l.D. No.96 ol 2013 on the file of the 3rd respondent as well asG.O.RI.No.327 LabourEmployment Training and Factories(Labour) Oepartmentdaled1010512017-
|.A.NO:1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO ;277980F 20171
Petition Under Section 151CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition,the HighCourt may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Awarddaled2310212017 made in l.D. No.96 of 2013 on the file of the 3rd respondentas well as G.O.Rt.No.327Labour Employment Training andFactories (Labour) Department dated 10/05/2017 pending disposal of the above writpetition.
|.A.NO:1 OF 2021
Between:
Shaik Sultan, Son of Shaik Jamal,C/o S.Prabhakar Reddy, F-3, H.No'16-10-2'12, R.K.Residency, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad 013.
....PETITIONER
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition Under Section 151 CPCprayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition,the High Court may be pleasedto vacate the interim order datedO2l0Bl2O1 7 in l.A.No.1of 2017in l.A. 1 of 2017 in W.P.No. 22579 of 2017 in the interest ofjustice. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRIP.VENUGOPAL REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI F.RAFEEQ AHMED
Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 &3: GPFOR LABOUR
W.P.NO: 22617 OF 20'17
Between:
Star Shoe Mali,, Apartnershipfirm, represented by its partner, Mrs.TaranumFatima, wife of Arshad Huisain Khan, Aged about35 years, resident of 5181644and 645, Abids X Roads, Abids, Hyderabad.
.....PETITIONER
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition Under Articre 226 ot the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, preferabry a Writ in the nature of certiorari, cafiing for the records rerating to Awa rd dared 23ro2t2o17 made in l'D' No.100 ot 2013 on the fire of the 3'd respondent as we, as G'o'RT'No.330 Labour Emproyment rraining and Factories (Labour) Department dated l0/05/2017 and quash the same as iilegar, arbitrary and viorative of Articre '14 of the constitution of rndia and contrary to the provisions of rhe rndustriar Disputes Acr, 1942 and pending disposar of the above writ petition suspend the operatlon of the Award dated 23r02r2o1 7 made in r.D.No.100 of 2013 on the fire of the 3rd respondent as we, as G.o.Rt.No.330 Labour Emproyment rraining and Factories (Labour) Department dated 1OlOSl2O1t.
l.A.NO:'l OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 27843 oF 20171
Petition Under section I 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation of the Award dated 23ro2r2o.r 7 made in r.D. No.100 0f 2013 on the fire of the 3'd respondent as we, as G.o.Rt.No.330 Labour Employment rraining and Factories (Labour) Department dated 10tos/2017 pending disposal of the above writ petition.
l.A.NO: 1 oF 202'l
Between:
Mohd.Jahangir, Son of Md.pasha, aged about 34 years, C/o S.prabhakar Reddy, resident of H.No. 1 7-6-1 02, Dabeelpira, ff yOera Oaf .- -
....PETITIONER
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under section 151CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in supportof the petition,the High courtmay be pleasedto vacate the interim order daledo2to8t2o17 in l.A.No.10l 20',17in w.P.No.26170f 2017 in the interest ofjustice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P.VENUGOPAL REDDY' SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI F.RAFEEQ AHMED
Counsel forthe RespondentNos.1 & 3: GP FOR LABOUR
Counsel for theRespondent No.2 : SRI S.PRABHAKARREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K.LAXMAN
W.P.NO:22709 O F 2017
Between:
star Shoe Mall, Apartnershipfirm,representedby its partner, Mrs.TaranumFatima, wire or ersnaa'Hu'ssainKha'n,Aged about35 years, resident ot 5181644and 645, Abids X Roads, Abids, HYderabad.
.....PETITIONER
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition Under Article 226of the constitution of lndia prayingthat in the circumstances stated inthe affidavitfiled therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, orderor direction, preferablya writ in the nature of certiorari, calling for therecords relating to Award dated 23-02-2017 made in lD.No.g7 of 2013 onthe file of the 3rd respondent as well as G.O.Rt.No.328 LabourEmployment TrainingandFactories(Labour) Department dated 10i05/201 7 andquash the same as illegal,arbitrary and violativeof Article 14 of the Constitution oflndia and contrary to the provisions of The lndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 andpending disposalof the above writ Petition suspendthe
operation of the Award dated2310212017 madein l.D. No.94- ol 2013 on the file of the 3rd respondent aswell as G.O.Rt.No.328 LabourEmployment Training and Factories(LabouQ Departmentdated10/05/2017.
|.A.NO:1 OF 2017(WPMP . NO: 27969OF 20171
Petition Under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition,the HighCourt may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Award dated23102120) made in LD. No. of 2013 on the the of the 3rd respondentas well as G.O.Rt.No.328 LabourEmployment Training and Factories(Labour) Departmentdated 10/05/20'17, pending disposal of the above writpetition.
I.A.NO: 1OF 2021
Between:
Sri Shaik leelani, Son of ShaikLateef, C/o S.Prabhakar Reddy, F-3, H.No.16-10- 212, R.K.Residency, Old Malakpet,Hyderabad 013.
....PETITIONER
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition Under Section151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filedin supportof the petition,the HighCourt may be pleasedto vacate the interim orderdated O2lOBl201 7 in l.A.No.1 of 2017 in W.P.No.22709 of 2017 in the interest ofjustice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P.VENUGOPAL REDDY' SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI F.RAFEEQ AHMED
Counsel for the RespondentNos.'l & 3: GP FOR LABOUR
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRIS.PRABHAKARREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K.LAXMAN
The Court made the following COMMONORDER
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION NOs.2254O 22579 226L7 &22709 of2Ot7
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue in all the writ petitions is one and the same, these matters are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
3.1. The 2"d respondent joined as Salesman in the petitioner mall on 30.O3.20O8 and worked continuously to the utmost satisfaction of the petitioner and used to work 12 hours from 1 1.00 a.m to 11.00 p.m., but the petitioner did not pay the overtime wages. The petitioner engaged more than 70 employees in his shop. 2"d respondent and others requested the petitioner to implement the labour laws and pay the wages. But, the petitioner did not follow the labour laws including covering the employee under PF & ESI and that the employee was never paid minimum wages as prescribed by the Government.
I.NA,J lIrP No.22540 of20l7 and botch 2
3.2. The petitioner bore grudge against them and started harassing them and wanted to eliminate the 2nd respondent and others on one pretext or the other. The petitioner called the 2.d respondent and others on 06.04.2013 and forcibly obtained their signatures on blank papers and handed over them letters to them showing that they were relieved from O4.O4.2O13 along with the cheques towards full and final settlement. 2,d respondent further contended that he never resigned from the job and when he and others demanded for implementation of minimum wages and payment of ESI and PF, the petitioner created documents as if the 2"d respondent tendered resignation. The petitioner failed to follow the procedure contemplated under section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act and the provisions of Section 4g of the A.p. Shops and Establishment Act.
3.3. Aggrieved by the termination, the 2nd respondent filed I.D.No.98 of 2013 before the Labour Court_I, Hyderabad
\
I i
LNA,J LrP No.22510 of20l7 and batch
3
appropriate authority, i.e., Labour Department for implementation of various provisions of labour laws, such as, minimum wages act, over time wages, maintaining of attendance register, etc. Petitioner denied that the 2"d respondent and other were called by him on 06.04.2013 and obtained their signatures on papers, but he admitted the relation between the parties.
4.1. Petitioner contended that due to personal reasons, 2.d respondent submitted resignation letter dated 2l .O3.2O13 requesting the petitioner to accept the same and accordingly, petitioner accepted the same and relieved the 2"d respondent on O4.O4.2O73. It is further contended that on 06.04.2013, 2-d respondent came to their office and received relieving letter along with cheque towards full and l-tnal settlement of his dues pertaining to his employment and encashed the cheque amount.
4.2. Petitioner further contended that 2nd respondent filed case under A.P. Shops and Establishment Act vide S.C.No.6 of 20 13 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and the same was withdrawn. It is also contended that once a case has been filed and same was withdrawn without taking the permission from the Court to file fresh case subsequent hling of case, amounts to res judicata. That out of six employees, two employees, by name,
4
LNA,J tlP No.22540 of)t)17 and batch
Md.Khasim and Md.Zaheer have again rejoined the service in the petitioner establishment and are continuing.
L
LN/1,J tVP .'o 22510 of20)7 and batch
5
8.2. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the compensation amount awarded by the Labour Court is contrary to law and does not stand the test of reasonableness or law. He submitted that the 2"d respondent is gainfully employed elsewhere. The petitioner is only a retail store dealing in footwear petty business and if the amounts ordered to be paid by the petitioner are paid, the income of the petitioner for almost a couple of years would be at jeopardy. There is no rationale and no basis for
6
LN4.J ItrP 1o.22510 o/20t7 and batch
awarding huge compensation by the Labour Court. It is further contended that absolutely there is no explanation and no reasons have been recorded for zv7a1djng the said amount. Further, no details have been given as to how the Labour Court quantihed the compensation amount and awarding Rs.2,00,00O/_ and finally, prayed for setting aside the impugned orders.
LNtl.J Ll/P No.22510 of 201 7 akd batch
1
'a
contribution. It is bounden duty of the petitioner to prove that it had followed the labour laws and paid ESp, EpF ald minimum wages and the petitioner did not file any document to show that it paid EPF regularly and ESI benefits.
1 1. The point for consideration is whether the compensation zrnount awarded by the Labour Court is just and proper ?
Consideration:
13.1. The Labour Court observed that Ex.W1 i.e., relieving letter, dated 04.O4.2O13, wherein it was mentioned that the Management has received the resignation letter (Ex.W2), dated 20.O3.2013 from the 2"a respondent and the 2"d respondent was relieved from service w.e.f. 04.O4.2013. On perusai of Ex.W2-resignation letter dated 20.03.2013, it is interesting to note that 2nd respondent put signature with date 06.04.2013. Therefore, it has to be presumed
f
8
I.NA,J
tt/P No 22540 of 2A l7
and batch
that the 2"d respondent had submitted his resignation on 06.04.2013, that means prior to submitting the resignation letter, the relieving letter was prepared.
13.2. The Labour Court also observed that petitioner in I.D.No.99 of 2Ol3 was examined as Management Witness No.3. The Labour Court on due consideration and analysis of the material and evidence at page Nos.6 and 7 of the award has observed as under:-
'.......that the respondent under threat and coercion obtained the signature of the petitioner on O6_O4_2023 and created the documents suitably with a period date and examination of MW-3 clearly shows that the management also obtarned his sigrature and aJter hling ID.99/ i3 the management by using illegal methods attracted MW_S in their favour and examined before the court as MW-3. It clearly shows that the respondent not only obtained signatures of the petitioner under threat and coercion they also warted to use MW-3 as a tool to defeat the claim of the petitioner. These vindictive tactics used by the respond.ent clearly_ a employer shows which that cannot they wanted be encouraged. to show thlir The ".p."irr.y ""manner and mode of obtaining signatures of the petitioner and converting the petitioner in ID.99/ 13 as a approver to safegrard the interest of the respondent clearly shows that even this court order of reinstatement of petitioner respondent will not a_llow the petitioner to do their job peacefully."
analyzed above, as mentioned above, the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that petitioner has obtained tJle signatures of 2d respondent ald others on blank papers on 06.04.2013 under threat, coercion and later Iilled up the blank papers for their convenience showing as if 2"a respondent has voluntarily tendered
LNA,J WP No 22510 of20l7 and batch
9
resignation, for which they settled the amount. The Labour Court further held that the marner and mode of obtaining signatures of the 2"a respondent and converting the petitioner in I.D.No.99 of 2013 as a approver to safeguard the interest of the petitioner shows the conduct and tactics adopted by the petitioner.
1 2015 (4) Scale 334
'an2074sczzs1 t ArR 2ot5 sc t373
' 12orr1r2 scc +as
LNA,J Ll/P No.2)510 of )017 ahd batch
l0
(supra), wherein the Hon,ble Apex Court had awarded Rs.5,00,000/- to each worker towards fuil and final settlement of the claim of the workers therein. Thus, the Labour Court relied upon above judgments and awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/_ to be paid to the 2"d respondent by the petitioner. Though, Labour Court did not elaborate the basis for quantihcation of such amount. It is relevalt to note that petitioner has not contributed any amount towards EPF and ESI etc., in respect of 2nd respondent. Further, Labour Court speciiically observed that relation between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 were strained and even if the Court ordered for reinstatement of 2nd respondent, petitioner shall not allow the 2"d respondent to do his job peacefully. Respondent no.2 raised specific contention that resignation letter and other documents are manipulated.
LNI,J tl/P No.22510 of20l7 and batch
ll
as on the date of hling of I.D. If the retirement age is considered as 58 years, the 2"d respondent has more than 20 years of service. The compensation of Rs.2,O0,000/- awarded by ttre Tribunal is equal to about 38 months salary being paid by the petitioner. Considering the age of the 2"d respondent and if he had continued in service, he would have got salary for more than 20 years, therefore, the compensaLion amount of Rs.2,OO,O00/- awarded by the Labour Court is very reasonable.
Conclusion:
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed
\
SD/.N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// v- SECTION OFFIGER
To
SA GJP $r-
HIGH COURT DATED:0611212023
.-.-+.
COMMON ORDER
W.P.Nos.22 540, 2257 9, 22617 AND 22709 0F 2017
STATe
1
o
$1\ .b
\ I[N
$ A+
o
I
o
I D E SF A1gt
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS
WITHOUT COSTS.
@*(""
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the compensation amount awarded by the Labour Court in lieu of reinstatement?
Whether the Labour Court was justified in holding that the petitioner obtained resignation documents under threat and coercion?
Whether the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- was reasonable given the estranged relationship between the parties?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Umrala Gram Panchayat vs. Secretary, Municipal Employees and othersReferred¶164
Bhuneshwar Kumar Trivedi vs. Haldia Industries LimitedReferred¶165
Makinon Mackenzil and Company Limited vs. Mackinoa Employees UnionReferred¶166
Delhi International Airport Private Limited vs. Union of India and othersReferred¶167
Star Shoe Mall
State of Telangana
Mohd. Amjad Ali
Shaik Sultan
Mohd. Jahangir
Shaik Jeelani
Laxmi Narayana Aishetty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
