Dismissed

The Management of Deccan College of Medical Sciences Princess Esra Hospital v. The Labour Court-Iii

Telangana HC20 Dec 2024WP/10790/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hospital management challenged a Labour Court reinstatement award against an ex-scavenger, filed seven years after the award without explanation. Relying on a Division Bench ruling treating such delay as inordinate, the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay alone.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition dismissed, no order as to costs.

The Management of Deccan College of Medical… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYFOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 10790 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Jle.^{M.q.ngrmentof Deccan coilege of Medicar sciencesprincess} Esra Hospitar, Shah Ali Banda, Hyderabad Rep by'its Authorized Signatory

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Labour Court-lll, Rep by its presiding Officer Hyderabad.

¶12

Smt.Rajapathi, W/o S.Kishan, aged about 5g years, Occ. Ex-Sweeoer. H.No.23-4-197lA, Suttan Shahi,Hyderabad. Also ri Clo Ovitrs, n-Juoiate D.No.1 -9-2O I I N 1 0, Rytham Restuarant Lane, Ramnagir, Hyd;;"b;J.^--'-

¶13

M/s. Nirmal Sanitation Services, H.No.23-4-4821^.,l6, Sultan Shahi, Hyderabad. Rep by its Proprietor Mr.M.Vijaya Kumdr

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ, order or Direction orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records in ID No. 164 of 2009 on the file of the 1st respondent Labour court-lll, Hyderabad and quash its award dated 0601-2016, passed in l.D.No. 164 of 2009 (published vide G.O. Rt.No- 401 dated 20{5-2016) as against the writ Petitioner, declaring the same as wholly ilbgal, unconstitutional, violation of the provisions of I.D.Act and consequenfly declare that the E,P.No. 4 ot 2022 in l.D.No. 164 of 2009, is not maintainable as against the Writ Petitioner.

¶16

IAN O:1 OF²⁰²³

¶17

PetitionunderSectionl5lcPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit^{filed in s,rpport of the petition,the High Court maybe pleasedto stay} all further^{proceedini;s in E.P.No.4 ol 2022 in l D No 164 of 2009 on the file of} RespondentNo-1,t-abourCourt-lll,Hyderabad,includingtheattachmentof propertiesofthewritpetitioner,pendingfinaldisposaloftheaboveWritPetition.

¶18

Counset for the^{Petitioner: SRI P.PANDURANGA REDDY}

¶19

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.1 : GP FOR SERVICESII}

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2 : SRI M.VIJAY KUMAR GOUD}

¶21

Counsel for the^{ResPondentNo.3 :} "

¶22

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶23

llji il

¶24

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{PULLA KARTHIK}

¶26

WRIT PETITION No. 10790^{0F 2023}

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Writ Petition is^{filed under Article 226 ofthe}

¶29

Constitution of India^{seeking the following relief:}

¶30

"...to issue^{Writ, Orderor Directionnore particularlgonein thenatureof} "Writ of Certiorai;^calling for^{the reardsin IDNo' 164 of 2OO9on the rtleof the} la reipondent^{Lobour iourull,Hgderabadandqugsh.} .its -anuard dated Oa.Ot.bol;,^{passedin I.D.No.164of 2oo9(published uideG'O'Rt No.4o1} dated 2o.Oi:2o16) as^{against the uitPetitioner,declari\gthe saneas uthollg} iltegal, unconstituiional,^{oiolation of the prouisionsof LD Act andconsequentla} aeiaie tlnt the^{E.P.NI.4 oJ2022 in l.D.No.164oJ2OO9,rs notmaintdindblc as} 6,gainst the Writ^{Petitianerand po.ss..."}

¶31

Heard Sri P.Pandu^{Ranga Reddy,learned counsel for ttre} petitioner; learned Government^{Pleader forServices-Ilfor} respondent No.1 and^{Sri M.Vijay Kumar Goud, learned counsel for} respondent No.2.^{Perusedthe material available on record'}

¶32

The facts of the case^{are that respondent No'2 hled} I.D.No.164 of 2OOq^{beforerespondentNo. 1 i'e', t'abourCourt-III,} Hyderabad, under^{Section 2.A (21 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947} (for short 1.D. ActJ^{seeking to reinstate her into servicewith} continuity of service,^{full back wagesand with all other attendant} benehts by setting^{aside the dismissalorder, dated07'05'2008} passed by the petitioner.^{Respondent No'l/Labour Court' after} hearingbothsides,uideAwatd,datedO6'O1'2O16,hasdirectedthe petitioner to reinstate^{respondent No'2 into service with continuity}

¶33

_ , -.1

¶34

¶35

PK,J wp 1O79O 2023

¶36

of service, back wages and attendant benehts and due to lapse of time, if respondent No.2 inclined to join into service, the petitioner has to pay retrenchment compensation considering the service of respondent Nrt.2 from l991 upto the date of removal i.e_, O7.O5.2OO8 and also continuity of service i.e., from the date of removal till the date of publication of the said Award. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present Writ petition.

¶37

Learned ,lounsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 1 / Labour Court failed to note that the very application filed under Section 21,-A (2) of I.D.Act. is not maintainable as there is no Employer and Workman relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.2; there is no averment in the application that respondent No.2 is the employee of petitioner and l.hat the petitioner had tr:rminated the services of respondent No.2, as such, no relief coulrl have been granted against the petitioner; respondent No.l/Labour Court ought io h.u. seen that the petitioner neither falls within the definiLion of ,Employer, as defined in Section 2(g) oi the I.D. Act nor within the delinition of .Industry, as defined in Section 2(Jl of the I.D. Act or respondent No.2 falls within the definition of lMorkman,as defined in Section 2(S) of the I.D. Act; respondent No.1 ought to have seen that there is no 'Industrial Dispute, between the petitioner and respondent No.2 as dehned in Section 2(K) of the I.D. Act; respondent No. 1 / Labour

PK,J Wp-10790-2023

Court ought to^{have seen that there is no 'retrenchment' of} respondent No.2^{by the petitioner so as to attract the provisions of} I.D. Act, even as^{per the version of respondent No'2' As there is no} relationship of^{Employer and Employee, no petition could lie} against the^{petitioner underSection2 of t]rle I'D' Act' It is further} submitted that^{respondentNo.l/LabourCourtought to have seen} that the^{petitioneris an EducationalTrust and runs on no profit} motiveandischaritableinnature,andassuch,doesnotfall within the definition of^{Industry' Therefore, respondent} No.1/Labour Court^{has no jurisdictionto entertain the application} and pass the said^{Award.Respondent No'l/Labour Court oughtto} have seen that the^{petitioner is excluded from the dehnition of} 'industry' as^{deflnedunder Section 2 (J) (21 of the I'D' Act as} substituted by^{Act 46 of l9a2'Respondent No'l/Labour Court} exceeded its^{jurisdiction in entertaining the applicationunder} Section 2^{(Al (21of the I.D. Act. Therefor-e, the entire proceedings} are vitiated.^{Hence, learned counsel prays this Court to pass} appropriate orders^{by setting aside the Award, dated 06'01'2O 16} passed by respondent^{No. 1/Labour Court'}

¶42

Per ontra,learned^{counselfor respondentNo'2 submits that} respondent No.2^{joined in the organizationas Scavenger in the} year, 1991 and worked^{continuouslytitlthe date oforal} termination i.e.,^{O7.O5.2OO8.Thereafter, since respondent No'2}

¶43

I^t

¶44

PK, wp_1079O 2O23

¶45

terminated the petitioner from discharging her duties, she was constrained to hle I.D.No.164 of 2OOg before respondent No. 1/Labou:: Court. Respondent No. 1/Labour Court has discussed elaboratery rvith regard to the service of respondent No.2 with the petitioner a_< per the identity card issued by the petitioner. It is further sub,mitted that respondent No. I / Labour Court on considering the entire issue in detail and by relying on the decisions of the Hon,ble Apex Court, has allowed the impugned I.D. Further, this Writ petition is barred by limitation as there is a delay of more than six years and tJrere is no convincing or reasonable cause shown by the petitioner to entertain the same. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to dismiss the Writ petition.

¶46

This Court has taken note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶47

A perus; of the record discloses that respondent No.2 hled I.D.No. 164 ol 2OO9 before the Labour Court_III, Hyderabad, under Section 2-A (2) of r.D. Act and respondent No. r /Labour court, uide Award dated 06.01.2016, has directed the petitioner to reinstate respondent No,2 into service with continuit5r of service, back wages and attendant benehts ald due to lapse of time, if respondent No.2 inclined to join into service, the petitioner has to pay retrenchment compensation ,considering the service of respondent No.2 from

PK,J Wp_10790 2O23

{ I

1991 upto the date of removal r.e., 07.OS.2OOS and also continuity of service i.e., from the date of removal till the date of publication of the said Award. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the said Award.

¶54

¶55

Before delving into the. merits _of the case, it is pertinent to note that the impugned Award in I.D.No. 164 of 2OO9 was passed by respondent No. 1/Labour Court on 06.01.2016 and the petitioner has filed the present Writ petition in the year 2O23 i.e., after a lapse of almost seven years, for which delay, no cogent reasons are assigned. Thus, it clearly shows that the petitioner was reluctant to chalienge the impugned Award in a timely manner

¶56

As regards deiay in approaching this Court, a Division Bench of this Court, uide judgment dated L3.12.2O27 tn Writ Appeal Nos. 166O of2O18 and 593 of 2076, has categorically held the delay of 5 to 18 years in preferring a Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as inordinate delay.

¶57

In the present case, since there is al inordinate delay of almost seven years on the part of the petitioner, for which, no valid or cogent reasons are assigned, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition, As such, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay al,one.

¶58

¶59

PK,J Wp 1(t79O-2023

¶60