Vst Industries Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

[³⁴⁸⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1'144 OF 2025

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 2310712025 in W.P.No.1941 5 of 2022. on the file of the High Court.

¶9

Betwee n:

¶10

VST lndustries Ltd., Rep. by its Company Secretary and VP - Legal and Secrelarial Phani K l,4angipudi S/o Late Shri. M V Subba Rao Registered Office at Azamabad, Hyderabad.

¶11

.....APPELLANT/2"d RESPONDENT

¶12

AND

¶13

'l , The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Speciai Chief Secretary to Govt , Labour Employment Training and Factories (Labour- ll) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

The lndustrial Tribunal - ll, Tanguturi Anajajah Karmika Samkshema Bhavan, RTC Cross Road, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Presiding Officer.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT Nos.1 & 3 ln W.P.No.19415 of 2022

¶16

R.P Subash Kumar, S/o. R.S. Paul (Deceased As per LRs)

¶17

4 R. S. Sujay Kumar, S/o. Late R. P. Subhash Kumar, Age 35 years, OccUnemployee, No.9-22611 , Employees Colony, Yapral, J.J Nagar, Secunderabad.

¶18

T Chennaiah, S/o. T. Bagaiah (Deceased As per LRs)

¶19

Topparam Shiva Kumar, S/o. Late T. Chennaiah, Age 40 years, OccUnemployee, No. 2-2-1 l1 I N1, Anjaihnagar, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad-44

¶20

S. Raj Mallaiah, S/o. S Ballaiah (Deceased As per LRs)

¶21

S. Laxminarayana, S/o. Late S.Raja Mallaiah Age 42 years, OccUnemployee, N o.1 -7 -1 0221918, Harinagar, Krsihnanagar, Zamisthanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-20.

¶22

R. P. lssac, S/o. R. A. Paul (Deceased As per LRs)

¶23

Rasamalla Karunakar, S/o. Late R. P. lssac, Age 40 years, OccUNemployee, Rl o.1 -7 -1 046138, SRT Colony, Ramanagar. Hyderabad-500 o20

¶24

'1 1 P Yadagiri, S/o P. Mallaiah (Deceased As per LRs)

¶25

P. l,ilanikantaYadav, S/o. Late Penda Yadagiri Yadav Age 32 years, OccU nemployee, N o.1 -7 -6291 1 14, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-500020

¶26

13 G. NiranjanRaju, S/o. G. Anantha Raju (Deceased As per LRs)

¶27

14.Sai Raj, S/o. Late G.NiranjanRaju, Age 35 years, Occ- Unemployee, R/o.5/3RT, Flat No. 101 , Sainath Laxmi Niavas, Vijayanagar Colony, Beside HDFC Bank, Hyderabad - 057.

¶28

15 S Mallesh, S/o. S. Ramulu (Deceased As per LRs).

¶29

16.Shaila Sri Calaga (Unmarried), D/o. Late Sudam t/allesh , Age 42 years, OccUnemployee, Rlo.1-1211110, VST Colony, Nacharam, Uppal Mandal, Ir,4edchal-lvatkajgiri District.

¶30

I,4. A- Rahaman, S/o. Md. Majeer (Deceased As per LRs)

¶31

18.Mohd. Ateequr Rahman, S/o. Late Mohammed Abdul Rahman, Age 34 years, Occ- Unemployce, Rl/o.1 -9-293/7, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad-044.

¶32

....RESPONDENTS

¶33

l.A.NO:1 OF 2025

¶34

Petrtion Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Order dt. 23.O7.2025 passed by Single Judge of this Court in W.P No. 1941 5 of 2022 pending disposal of this writ appeal in the interest of justice.

¶35

Counsel for Appel ant : SRI SUNIL B.GANU, REPRESENTING Ms K.MAANASA

¶36

Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Ms. M.SHALINI, GP FOR SERVICES -ll

¶37

Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 to 18 : SRI B.BALAJI, REPRESENTING LEARNED COUNSEL SRI C.NAGESHWAR RAO

¶38

The Court made the following JUDGMENT

¶39

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KIIMAR SINGH

¶40

AND

¶41

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

¶42

u/RIT APPEAL No. 1144 of 2025

¶43

JUDGMENT:

¶44

Learned Senior Counsel Sri Sunil B.Ganu,

¶45

representing learned counsel Ms. K. Maanasa, appears for the appellant.

¶46

Ms. M.Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services - II, appears for respondents No.l and 2.

¶47

Learned counsel Sri B.Ba1aji, representing learned counsel Sri C.Nageshwar Rao, appears for the unofficial re spondents.

¶48

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶49

58 rvorkmen of the appellant raised an industrial dispute under Section i0(1)(d) ol the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , lor implementation ol an oral settlement entered into bv the union and the management under the guidance of the President of the Union. I.D.No.O2 of 2015 r'i,as instituted upon relerence by the Labour Department. The

¶50

l

¶51

!,OrkmCn^!'ere seeking the benefit of compassionate The u'orkmen had retired between the years appointmt:^nt. 2OOB to^'2012 The learned Industriai Tril; unal ll at Hyderabad^{(hereinafter referred to as, "the Tribunal") by an} order dated^{15.O2.2O2i declined the relief bl' holdingas} under:

¶52

" 17. [n viclr' o[^{thc abovedecision,in this casc all the} petitiorlersi^{arc retiredfromthc scrvicesfrom 2OO6 to 2Ol2} and now^{tl.Icywant to implementthe settlement arrived by} Managt:mcnt^{andUnionin the year 2013 underEx.M1-As} per Ex.M^I .^{As perEx.M1, theprevicus scttlement} dt: 16.6^{20 lO u'astcrmir-ratedduc to new settlement entered} by Union^{and the Managementot-t 8' I l.2O 13 beforethe} conciliation^{of{icer u/s12{31r/wsection18(3)ofthe} Industrial^{Disputcs Act, 1947. As per the admission of WW1} and WW2.^{thc terms and conditicns entered by the Union} with the^{Managementisbinding on all the employees.} Whereas the^{petitioners retired from theservices on} differenr^{datcs from 20O6onwardsto 2012. on the other} hand. the^{respondentclearly establishedthat there was a} settlemcnt^{betweenunion andManagement before the} conciliation^{officcr underEx.IVII in thepiace ofold} settlemcnt^{and ncw settlementwas canleinto effecton} 8. 1 1 .20^{13. If thatis so, the terms and conditionsmentioned} in settlement^{inthe year 2013 isnot binding on the} petitioners ar]d this^{court have no jurisdiction} directing the malagemcnt^{to apply the samewith retrospective affect.On} the other hand,^{as per section 2(p) any othersettlement} must bc^{ir.rri riting and itshould be dulysigned by both}

¶53

)

¶54

parties. Therefore, the oral settlement raised before the late Sri P. Janardhan Reddy ex-union President of the Respondent Compaly/Minister have no force in the eye of law. Therefore, there is no anyjustification to the petitioners to demand the respondent company to apply the terms and conditions mentioned in 2013 settlement retrospectively to the employees who are retired in the year 2O06 to 2012.

¶55

i8. On the other hand, this court found latches on part of the petitioners that alleged to be legal Representatives of deceased employee's straight way added as parties to the reference without adding the names of deceased employee and his occupational status. Apart from above, the pctitioners are all retired from the services long back ar-rd accepted the retirement benehts without any protest till raising the dispute before the Labour Commissioner r.ide their representation dt: 3L.12.2O14. Admittedly, the dcmands of group of retired employees were not suppcrted by Union before the Joint Commissioner.

¶56

Apart from above, except WWI and WW2, other petitioners werc not given any authorization on their behalf to adjudicate the issue before this Court. On the other hand, once the employee retired from the services after attaining superannuation it automaticaliy ends the relationship of employee and employer other than in a case of removal, retrenchment, lay off closure etc. then only the Industrial Disputes Act, 7947 is applicable. Here the petitioners retired long back and received the payments wilhout any protest. Therefore, the management thinks that there is no urny dispute in between them. Subsequently, entered with the new settlement before the Labour Commissioner with the Union. Therefore, the dispute raised

¶57

'--

¶58

¶59

by the present petitioners can't be treated as [ndustrial Dispute arLd it is only an individual dispute.

¶60

In vicrv of thc discussions of this court, this court have no power to go bcyond the reference and no power to direct the respondent to enter into a settlement with the retircd employees. On thc other halrd, this court have no power to implcment the 2O l3 settlement retrospectively to the petitioners who are alleged to be retired long back. Thcrefore, thc petitioncrs not entitled any benefrts as clarmcd b1, thcm.

¶61

Accordingly, this issue is answered iir favour of the responder'r t against the petitioncrs.

¶62

Issue No.2:

¶63

In vicw' of the discussions in issue No.1, the petltioncrs not cntitled an1' rclief as prayed by them. Hence, tire claim pctition of petitioners is hereby dismrssed due to lack of medts-

¶64

In the result, petition is dismissed u'ithout cost. Accordrngly, this refercnce is answered."

¶65

During the pendenc-. of the industrial dispute reference, eight of the workmen had passed away without being substituted by the legal heirs. The surviving workmen, aggrieved by the award dated 15.02.2021 irt I.D.No.02 of 20 i5, preferred a writ petition, being W.P.No.34921 of 2021, r.r'hich is pending. The dependants of the remaining deceased vr,orkmen in the said industrial

¶66

r

¶67

dispute^{(hereinafter referred to as,} "the^{writ petitioners"),} chose to Prefer an independent writ petition 1.e., W.P.No.194 l5^of 2022,^{which is the impugnedproceedings,} for a direc'tion to respondent No.2 therein,^who is^the appellant herein, to consider their request^for compassionate appointment.^{The learned} writ court,^after considering the stand of the^pa-rties, directed the appellant to consider the^grievance of the petitioners therein as^per their represcntation dated 15.lO.2Ol2 seeking compassionate appointment without any delay. The appellant, being aggrieved, has^preferred this appeal.

¶68

l-carrncd Scnior Counsel for the appellant submits that in the lirst place, the appellant is neither a State nor all instrumentality u'here the scheme of compassionate appointment applies. Even otherwise, the settlement r,,,hich^q'as in voguc till 2010 had been replaced by another settlcment ol 20 13, rvhich was sought to be applied retrospective l-y at the instance of the workmen in the industrial dispute relerence. The learned Tribunal declined the relief. Nonc of writ petitioners were impleaded as the

¶69

.--

¶70

()

¶71

legal heirs of the workmen u'ho died during the pendency of the rt-'ference. Learned Scnior Counsel submits that none of l.hese n,orkmen had died in harness. All of them had retired by 2Ol2 and died during the pr:ndency of the reference. The learned writ court failed to appreciate that the appellant is not a State or an instrumentality where the scheme of compassionate appointment exists. There was no settlernent at the relevant point of time which could enable the u-orkmen to stakc a claim for appointment of their dependents on their death or retirement. The writ petitioners zrpproached the learned u'rit court straightaway after ten vears of the alleged representation. Such a claim was also belated and stale. There '"t'as no legal entitlement on the part of the writ petitioners to seek a direction or mandamus upon the appellant. Despite a1l these shortcomings, the learned in'rit court issued a direction, though innocuous in nature, but having implications rvhich cotrld not be implemented b.r' the appeliant.^He relies upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.Jacob v, Director of Geology and Miningt (paragraphs ' r:oot) to scc r ts

¶72

7

¶73

8 to^{14), Government of India v.P.Venkatesh2} (paragraph^{8) and also a recent decision in Ahmednagar} Mahanagar^{Palika v.Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika} Kamgar^{Uniona (paragraph8). Learned SeniorCounsel for} the appellant^{submitsthat therefore the impugnedorder} may^{be set aside.}

¶74

Learned^{counsellor the} '"r'rit^{petitioners has opposed} the prayer^{and submits that the impugned directionsare} only for^{consideration of the grie.zancesof the writ} petitioners for^{compassionateappointment. Therefore,} there is^{no infirmity' in the order of the learned writ court.} He also^{submitsthat since the representationof the writ} petitioners^{had remained pending} for^{ten years, they} straightaway^{approachedthe learnedwrit court. He does} not dispute^{that the writ petitionerswerenever impleaded} as legal heirs^{beforethe learned Tribunal in the industrial} dispute^{reference. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners} has also not^{been able to show} any^right arising out of^a settlement^{orlegal right orcontractual} right to^seek

¶75

'^{(:o tg)} t5 scc 6ll '(:ouz) IO SCC I7:

¶76

E

¶77

compassionate^{appointment based on lt'hich a direction} could^{be issuedby the learnedr'r'rit court.Learned counsel} lor the^{writ petitionershas also not been able to satisfyas} to whether^{the appellant falls in the category of a State or} its instrumentality^{againstrri'hom the vvrit petition was} maintainable.

¶78

7 . We have^{consideredthe submissions of the learned} counsel for^{the parties and taken note of the relevant} material and^{facts pleaded.The attendant facts referred to} iu the foregoing^{paragraphs make it abundantl-v clear that} the writ^{petition was notmaintainableagainst the} appellant, as it^{is neither the State or its instrumcntality} nor performing any^{functions of public natureas such.} That is why all the^{workmen approachedt he learned} Tribunal on reference of an industrial dispute which^was declined by the learned Tribunal. The writ^petitioners have failed to establish any legal or contractual right or any right arising out of a settlement between the employer and the workmen which could clothe them vr.ith a legitimate claim for being considered for compassionate appoin tment.

¶79

()

¶80

The alleged representation rlras made in ti;,e year 2072 before the management ol the appellant. The writ petition was liled in the year 2022 after ten years of delay. In this regard, the pronouncements of the Apex Court which had been relied upon b1. thc Iearned Senior Counsel for the appellant squarely appl-v to the lacts of the case. It would be appropriate to extract the opinion ol the Apex Court in the case of C.Jacob (supra) Itl paragraphs 11 and 13 hereunder:

¶81

'11. When a direction is issued by a court/tribunal to consider or cleal u,ith the represcntation, usually the directee (person directed) examines the matter on merits, being under the impression that failure to do so may amount to disobedience. When an order is passed considering and rejecting the claim or rcpresentation, in compliance r,l ith direction ol- the court or tribunal, such an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of "acknowledgcment of a jural relationship" to givc rise to a frcsh cause of action.

¶82

Where an emplo-r,ec unauthorisedly absents himself and suddenly appears after 20 years and demands that he shor-rld be taken back and approaches the court, thc de partment naturally will not or may not have a ny record relating to the employee at that distance ol timc. In such cases, when

¶83

l0

¶84

the employer fails to produce the records of the enquiry and the order of dismissal/ removal, court carlnot dra$' an adverse inference against the emplol-cr for not producing records, nor direct reinstatemenl $'ith back wages for 20 years, ignoring the cessation o[ servicc or the lucrative alternative employment of the cmplo5,ee. Misplaced sympathy in such matters u,ill rrncourage indiscipline, lead to unjust enrichment of the cmployec at lault and result in drain of public exchcqucr. Many a tinrr: there is also no application of mincl :rs to thc cxtent of hnancial burden, as a rcsult ol;r routinc order lor back wages."

¶85

lt r.vould also be appropriate to extract thc opirrion o[ thc ltl Apcx Court in the case of P.Venkatesh (supra) paragraph B hereunder:

¶86

"8.^{This"disposeof thereprcsentation" lnantrals} increasingly permeating the^judicial process in thc High Courts and the Tribunals. Such orders mav nrake lor a quick or easy disposal of cases in ovcrl;urdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do no serlicc to thc cause ofjustice. The litigant is back again beforc tl.rc court, as this case shows, having incurred attcndant costs an(l suffered delays of the legal process. This rvould hirre becn obviated by calling for a counter in the first instancc. thereby resulting in hna-1ity to the disputc. By thc timc, the High Court issued its direction on 9-8-20 l6 [P. Vertkate:;h v. Central Administratiue TibunaL 20 I 6 SCC

¶87

n

¶88

Online Mad 2086U] ,^{nearlv tu'cntv one years had el:rpsed} since the date of^{the death ol the emplo-vee "}

¶89

For all the aforesaid^{reasons, the impugned order of} the iearned^{writ court inW.P.No. 194 15 of 2022, dated}

¶90

23.O7.2025, cannot^{be sustained. It is therefore set aside'}

¶91

9 The writ appeal^{is accordingly' allou-ed' There shallbe} no order as to costs

¶92

Miscellaneous^{application spending,ifany, shall}

¶93

stand closed.

¶94

D K.SRINIVASA RAO OINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

S CTION OFFICER

To

The Special Chief Secretary to Government, Labour Emiployment Training and Factories (Labour- ll) Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶99