Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S. Kovur Cooperative Sugar Factory ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 17 October, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION Nos.32582 and 28989 of 2016
W.P.No.32582 of 2016:
Between:
K.Subrahmanyam, S/o.Ramachandraiah,
C/o.P.Raja Gopal, Jammipalam Village,
Inamadugu post, SPSR Nellore District
....Petitioner
And
The Kovur Co.operative Sugar Factory Limited, rep.by its
Managing Director, Kovvur(Post), SPSR Nellore District and three others
....Respondents
W.P.No.28989 of 2016
The Kovur Co.operative Sugar Factory Limited,
Pothireddipalem, SPSR Nellore District,
Rep.by its Managing Director (I/C),
Sri D.Rajeswara Rao
....Petitioner
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep.by its Prl.Secretary, Labour Employment
Training & Factories Department, A.P.Secretariat,
Hyderabad and four others
....Respondents
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 17.10.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
MRK,J
W.P.Nos.32582 and 28989 of 2016
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the order?
2. Whether the copy of order may be marked Yes/No
to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Her Ladyship wish to see the fair copy Yes/No
of the order?
______________________________
MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J
MRK,J
W.P.Nos.32582 and 28989 of 2016
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
+ WRIT PETITION Nos.32582 and 28989 of 2016
% 17.10.2025
# Between:
W.P.No.32582 of 2016
K.Subrahmanyam, S/o.Ramachandraiah,
C/o.P.Raja Gopal, Jammipalam Village,
Inamadugu post, SPSR Nellore District
....Petitioner
And
The Kovur Co.operative Sugar Factory Limited, rep.by its
Managing Director, Kovvur(Post), SPSR Nellore District and three others
....Respondents
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 17.10.2025
! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P.Govinda Rajulu
^ Counsel for the Respondents : Sri S.V.Muni Reddy
W.P.No.28989 of 2016
The Kovur Co.operative Sugar Factory Limited,
Pothireddipalem, SPSR Nellore District,
Rep.by its Managing Director (I/C),
Sri D.Rajeswara Rao
....Petitioner
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep.by its Prl.Secretary, Labour Employment
MRK,J
W.P.Nos.32582 and 28989 of 2016
4
Training & Factories Department, A.P.Secretariat,
Hyderabad and four others
....Respondents
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 17.10.2025
! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri S.V.Muni Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondents : Sri P.Govinda Rajulu
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1.(2009) 9 SCC 601
2.(2011) 5 SCC 142
3.(2014) 7 SCC 177
4. 2008(9) SCC 1
5. 2025(3) SCC 266
6. (2003) 6 SCC 1
7. (2008) 7 SCC 375
MRK,J
W.P.Nos.32582 and 28989 of 2016
5
APHC010050982016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 32582 OF 2016
Between:
1. K.Subrahmanyam, S/o Ramachandraiah, C/o. P. Raja Gopal,
Jammipalam village, Inamadugu post, SPSR Nellore Dist.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The Kovur Co-Operative Sugar Factory Limited, Rep by its Managing
Director, Kovvur (Post) SPSR Nellore Dist.
2. The Director of Sugar Cum Cane Commissioner, Vijayawada, Krishna
Dist. (now changed as Vijayawada, Krishna dist in place of Exhibition
grounds Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.
3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, Industries and
Commerce (Sugar) Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Andhra
Pradesh. (Secretariat, Hyderabad, now changed as Secretariat,
Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh.)
4. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court
may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or directions more in the nature of
Writ of Certiorari, declaring the Award in ID No:40/2011, dated: 26-2-2016
on the file of 4th respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and quash the same
in so far against to the petitioner in denial of reinstatement with all
MRK,J
W.P.Nos.32582 and 28989 of 2016
6
attendant benefits and back wages and further direct the respondent
Management herein to reinstate the petitioner into service with all
attendant benefits including full back wages and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner: P GOVINDA RAJULU
Counsel for the Respondents: S V MUNI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE
(AP)
The Court made the following order:
MRK,J
W.P.Nos.32582 and 28989 of 2016
7
APHC010324482016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION No: 28989 OF 2016
Between:
1. M/s. Kovur Co-Operative Sugar Factory Ltd.,, Pothireddipalem, SPSR
Nellore District, Rep. by its Managing Director (I/C), Sri D.Rajeswara Rao.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Labour
Employment Training & Factories Department, A.P., Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur, Guntur District.
3. K Subrahmanyam, S/o. Ramachandraiah, C/o. P.Rajagopal,
Jammipalam Village, Inamadugu Post, SPSR Nellore District.
4. The Director of SugarCumCane Commissioner, Exhibition Grounds
Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.
5. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries
and Commerce (Sugar) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court
may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" declaring the impugned
award made in I.D.No.40 of 2011 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur,
dated 26.02.2016, the 2nd respondent, as published vide G.O.Rt.No.484,
MRK,J
W.P.Nos.32582 and 28989 of 2016
8
Labour Employment Training and Factories (OP) Department, dated
23.06.2016, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, without jurisdiction, void
and to quash the same by calling for the records relating to the said
award, I.D.No.40 of 2011, dated 26.02.2016 and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioner: S V MUNI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
MRK,J W.P.Nos.32582 and 28989 of 2016 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION Nos.32582 and 28989 of 2016 Common Order:
W.P.No.32582 of 2016 was filed by the writ petitioner/Workman before this Court seeking to declare the award in I.D.No.40 of 2011 dated 26.02.2016, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Guntur (in short „the Tribunal‟) against the authorities of M/s. Kovur Co-
operative Sugar Factory Ltd., in respect of the denial of reinstatement with all attendant benefits and back wages and for consequential direction to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant benefits and back wages.
2. Whereas, W.P.No.28989 of 2016 has been filed by the writ petitioner/M/s. Kovur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd., being aggrieved by the award dated 26.02.2016 made in I.D.No.40 of 2011 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, at Guntur, and seeking to quash the same. The said I.D. was filed by the 3rd respondent/Workman, which was published in A.P. Gazette in G.O.Rt.No.484, dated 23.06.2016, whereunder, the Tribunal has passed an Award in I.D.No.40 of 2011 by directing the petitioner/M/s. Kovur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd., to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and other prayers made in the claim petition.
MRK,J W.P.Nos.32582 and 28989 of 2016 10
3. For the sake of better understanding, the parties i.e., the petitioner in W.P.No.32582 of 2016 & the 3rd respondent in W.P.No.28989 of 2016 and the petitioner in W.P. No.28989 of 2016 & the 1st respondent in W.P. No.32582 of 2016, are hereinafter referred to as „Workman‟ and „Sugar Factory‟ respectively.
4. The subject matters in the above two writ petitions are against the same award in I.D.No.40 of 2011 dated 26.02.2016, passed by the Tribunal, published in the A.P. Gazette in G.O.Rt.No.484, dated 23.06.2016 and also taking into account the common arguments advanced by the respective counsels, this Court ventures to pass Common Order.
5. Heard Sri P. Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel for the Workman as well as Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the Sugar Factory and learned Assistant Government Pleader (Labour), at length. Perused the material available on record.
Brief case of the Workman:
6. The Workman was appointed as NMR (Nominal Muster Roll) Security Guard in the 1st respondent/Sugar Factory, in the year 1989, in regular vacancies by following the selection process. Right from the date of joining into the service, the Workman worked continuously without a break for 240 days during one calendar year in the Sugar Factory.
MRK,J W.P.Nos.32582 and 28989 of 2016 11 Though Sugar Factory works on a seasonal basis for about six to eight months in a year and the duties entrusted to the Security Guard are perennial in nature, which cannot be equated with the post of NMR.
7. According to the Workman, the Sugar Factory had stopped the services of 281 NMRs, including the petitioner, w.e.f. 15.04.2005 vide proceedings Rc.No.Estt./KCSF/VRS/2005 dated 04.04.2005, and it also stated in the proceedings that the NMRs would be taken into service as and when there is a requirement based on their experience, qualifications, eligibility criteria, etc. According to the workman, it violates the procedure enunciated under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
8. Challenging the said action of termination by the Sugar Factory, the Workman along with others approached the High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad, by way of W.P.No.9933 of 2005 and the said writ petition was allowed vide Order dated 23.11.2005, with a direction to the 1st respondent/Sugar Factory to engage the petitioners as Security Guards, depending upon the existence of work. Questioning the order of the learned Single Judge, the Sugar Factory filed a writ appeal vide W.A. No.2517 of 2005 and the Hon‟ble Division Bench, by allowing the intra court appeal vide judgment dated 08.02.2010, had set aside the order dated 23.11.2005, with a liberty to the petitioners therein to raise an industrial dispute before the Tribunal.
MRK,J W.P.Nos.32582 and 28989 of 2016 12
9. In consonance with the dictum of the Hon‟ble Division Bench of this Court, the subject matter I.D. was emanated under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before „the Tribunal‟ seeking to set aside the dispensement / termination proceedings dated 04.04.2005 and to reinstate the Workman with all consequential benefits with interest at 12% per annum.
Brief case of the Sugar Factory:
10. M/s.Kovur Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited operates primarily for crushing sugar cane and other manufacturing activities only on a seasonal basis. The Sugar Factory runs with three types of employees i.e., permanent, seasonal and NMR/Daily Wage employees. It is specifically submitted by the Sugar Factory that the Workman is only a casual worker and not a regular employee, who was not engaged by the Sugar Factory. As the Factory was facing heavy losses and multifarious problems, the crushing operations had not been taken up for two years i.e., from 2003 to 2005. In order to reduce and decrease the workforce, a committee was formed with guidelines for making the Sugar Factory financially viable. The said committee reported that the Sugar Factory is in financial doom and a total of 281 NMRs/casual workers are liable to be discharged from the Sugar Factory. Accordingly, the Sugar Factory dispensed the NMRs by providing gratuity and PFs in terms of JAC resolution.
MRK,J W.P.Nos.32582 and 28989 of 2016 13 Summary of the Industrial Dispute:
11. In I.D.No.40 of 2011, the Workman got examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 (Copy of the order in R.C.No.Estt./KCF/VRS/2005 dated 04.04.2005), Ex.P.2 (Copy of the notice issued by the petitioner to the Managing Director of the Sugar Factory) and Ex.P.3 (Postal Receipt). On behalf of the Sugar Factory, none were examined and no documents were marked.
12. Based on the available evidence on record, the Tribunal framed the following points:-
1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits with interest @ 12% per annum as prayed for?
2) If not, to what relief the petitioner is entitled?
13. The Tribunal after appreciating the relevant facts and circumstances involved in the lis, passed the award dated 26.02.2016 in I.D.No.40 of 2011, whereby, it directed the respondent /Sugar Factory to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and other prayers made in the writ petition. The said award was also published in the A.P. Gazette vide G.O.Rt.No.484 dated 23.06.2016 by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
MRK,J W.P.Nos.32582 and 28989 of 2016 14
14. Aggrieved by the award dated 26.02.2016 passed in I.D.No.40 of 2011, the Sugar Factory filed W.P. No.28989 of 2016, seeking to set aside. Being dissatisfied with the denial of reinstatement into service with attendant benefits and back wages, etc., in the very same I.D., the Workman also filed W.P. No.32582 of 2016.
15. The learned counsel for the Workman submitted that the Sugar Factory management failed to follow the procedure laid down U/s. 25-F of I.D.Act in passing the impugned proceedings dated 04.04.2005. He submitted that mere plea of non-functioning of the Sugar Factory due to financial distress does not disown the statutory obligations of the Factory, which is under the direct control of the State Government and falls under the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Sugar Factory submitted that right from the year 2003, the Sugar Factory was not functioning. As such, the question of reinstating the workman does not arise. He further urged that the Sugar Factory could not pay any amount to the Workman as the Factory is in severe financial crisis. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the sugar factory after taking note of the written instructions of the Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioner, Government of A.P.(which are made as part of the record), submitted through learned Assistant Government Pleader, he not pressed his plea regarding the jurisdictional point.
MRK,J W.P.Nos.32582 and 28989 of 2016 15 Consideration of the Court:
17. The central point in the lis revolves around the proceedings dated 04.04.2005 issued by the Sugar Factory. For the sake of comprehensive view, the relevant portion of the above proceedings is extracted hereunder, which reads as:
".....The crushing operations of the factory have not been taken up for 2 seasons i.e., from 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, since the Government have not issued permission. The Govt. have taken steps to revive the sugar factories with effect from 2005-2006 crushing season, which have become financially sick and kept for privatisation. While reviving the factories by the present Govt. instructions were issued with financial disciplines and also downsizing the employees through new staffing pattern, issued by National Co-operative Sugar factories, New Delhi and recommended by the Commissioner. In this process, the management offered Voluntary Retirement Scheme to the permanent and seasonal employees.........."
In the light of the above references, the services of the following 281 NMRs are stopped with effect from 15.04.2005......."
1.............
2..............
3..............
4..............
5..............
6..............
................
281..........."
18. A plain reading of the above proceedings clearly indicates that due to non-granting of permission by the concerned Government, crushing operations of the Sugar Factory for the period 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 did not take place at all. Further, the Government has taken steps to MRK,J W.P.Nos.32582 and 28989 of 2016 16 revive the Factories that have become financially sick and are being kept for privatization. In that backdrop only, downsizing of the employees through a new staffing pattern issued by the National Co-operative Sugar Factories, New Delhi., Government constituted committee comprising different functionaries and the Sugar Factory offered voluntary retirement Scheme. Thus, the services of total 281 NMRs were dispensed with a rider that as and when their services are required, they will be taken on contract basis depending upon their eligibility, criteria and work need, etc. It also discloses that the deceased NMRs who have not received their compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the Sugar Factory, their son/daughter/wife, would be prioritised during the future intake of such post. The said proceedings dated 04.04.2005 were challenged in the present writ petitions.
19. Apparently, even according to both the counsel, incontrovertibly the Sugar Factory has not been functioning since the year 2003. When the Sugar Factory is not functioning, the question of ordering reinstatement of services of NMRs does not arise at all. More so, the Workman has not filed the appointment order issued by the Sugar Factory.
20. In the case on hand, except mere assertion on behalf of workman he was appointed as NMR Security Guard in permanent vacancy. But, the said plea was unequivocally denied by the sugar factory right from inception. Admittedly, the Tribunal below not recorded its finding that, MRK,J W.P.Nos.32582 and 28989 of 2016 17 workman was appointed in the clear vacancy nor he is permanent employee of sugar factory. More so, Ex.P1 (Copy of order in Rc.No.Estt./KCF/VRS/2005 dated 04.04.2005) clearly shows the petitioner‟s name in 281 NMR names whose services were dispensed w.e.f.15.04.2005. Thus, from the above facts and circumstances, it is crystal clear that the workman does not come under the category of permanent employee of the sugar factory.
21. In this backdrop, it is apt to note the well settled legal principles held in Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. V.Venkatesan1, Coal India Limited Vs. Ananta Saha2 followed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in it‟s dictum held in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhurumal3 in unequivocal words given its expression in paras 33 and 34, which are extracted hereunder:
"33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or mala fide and/or by way of victimization, unfair labour practice etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect, namely, in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that in such cases reinstatement 1 (2009) 9 SCC 601 2 (2011) 5 SCC 142 3 (2014) 7 SCC 177 MRK,J W.P.Nos.32582 and 28989 of 2016 18 with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.
34. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization (See: State of Karnataka v.
Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1). Thus when he cannot claim regularization and he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose."
Thus, in view of settled legal position, the claim of the petitioner in respect of reinstatement, back wages and attendant benefits, the Tribunal, after taking note of the overall facts and circumstances, and also the specific evidence produced by the Workman, had reasonably awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/-, and the same is hereby confirmed.
22. In the light of the above peculiar facts and circumstances involved in this lis, it is apt to mention that the scope of interference by this Court MRK,J W.P.Nos.32582 and 28989 of 2016 19 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of an award passed by the Tribunal is very narrow and limited. The High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, does not sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the Tribunal, nor it reappreciate the evidence or substitute its own conclusions for those of the fact-finding authority. Interference is permissible only where the award suffers from a manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record, where there is a violation of the principles of natural justice, or where the Tribunal has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction. So long as the view taken by the Tribunal is a possible and plausible one based on the specific evidence, ground reality and not perverse, this Court refrains from interfering with the award passed by the Tribunal, as it does not suffer from any infirmity.
23. In this context, it is apt to note the expression of the Apex Court in the case of Shamshad Ahmad Vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj4, wherein it is held at para 38, which reads as follows:-
"........38. Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a Court of Appeal or a Court of Error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate Court or inferior Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law 4 2008 (9) SCC 1 MRK,J W.P.Nos.32582 and 28989 of 2016 20 and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior Court or Tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate Courts and inferior Tribunals within the limits of law......"
24. Recently, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Ajay Singh Vs. Khacheru and Others5 in its vivid terms, had categorically held that the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at a finding of fact, unless the authorities had exceeded their Jurisdiction.
25. Coming to the case on hand, as both the counsel have not pointed out the jurisdictional nor procedural flaws, in the absence of any flagrant violation of law, nor any grave miscarriage of justice calling for the intervention of this court by exercising its vested powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not warranted.
26. Now, coming to the assertion of the sugar factory counsel, by merely raising a plea of financial crisis, whether the Sugar Factory can escape from its liability to pay the amounts to its employees. This very question has been answered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Kapila Hingorani Vs. State of Bihar6 at para 34 held as follows:
"The State may not be liable in relation to the day to day functioning of the Companies, but its liability would arise on 5 2025 (3) SCC 266 6 (2003) 6 SCC 1 MRK,J W.P.Nos.32582 and 28989 of 2016 21 its failure to perform the constitutional duties and functions by the public sector undertakings, as in relation thereto the State's constitutional obligations. The State acts in a fiduciary capacity. The failure on the part of the State in a case of this nature must also be viewed from the angle that the statutory authorities have failed and/or neglected to enforce the social welfare legislations enacted in this behalf e.g. Payment of Wages Act, Minimum Wages Act etc. Such welfare activities as adumbrated in Part IV of the Constitution of India indisputably would cast a duty upon the State being a welfare State and its statutory authorities to do all things which they are statutorily obligated to perform."
As per the above decision, wherein it was categorically held that Government companies and public sector undertakings, being „State‟ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, are bound to discharge their statutory obligations and to perform all duties mandated by law.
27. In fact, the Hon‟ble Apex Court also reiterated the above principles in Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and others Vs. G.S. Uppal7. The relevant para of the judgment reads as under:-
"34. .........Thus, the Corporation cannot put forth financial loss as a ground only with regard to a limited category of employees. It cannot be said that the Corporation is financially sound insofar as granting of revised pay scales to other employees is concerned, but finds financial constraints only when it comes to dealing with the respondents who are similarly placed in the same category. Having regard to the well- reasoned judgment of the Division Bench upholding the 7 (2008) 7 SCC 375 MRK,J W.P.Nos.32582 and 28989 of 2016 22 judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the impugned judgment warrants no interference inasmuch as no illegality, infirmity or error of jurisdiction could be shown before us......."
28. Reverting to the present case, admittedly "Sugar Factory" comes under the realm of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The State of A.P. is having its right of supervision and also direct control over the sugar factory. Hence, State‟s legal liability would arise in the event of failure to perform constitutional duties and liabilities of the sugar factory, i.e. M/s.Kovur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd., which is a public sector undertaking. Viewed from any angle, argument of financial incapacity to pay amounts to the workman is not legal and also against our constitutional ethos.
Conclusion:
29. Considering the overall facts and circumstances and also keeping in view the well-settled legal position stated above, this Court is inclined to dispose of both the writ petitions as follows:-
(i) Writ Petition No.28989 of 2008 filed by the Sugar Factory is dismissed.
(ii) Writ Petition No.32582 of 2016 filed by the Workman is also dismissed.
(iii) In view of the efflux of time since the institution of the industrial dispute in the year 2011, this Court expects that official respondents in W.P.No.28989 of 2008 shall take necessary steps towards the implementation of the award dated 26.02.2016 passed by the Tribunal, by paying the MRK,J W.P.Nos.32582 and 28989 of 2016 23 compensation to the Workman as expeditiously as possible, if not already paid.
No costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.
____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date:17.10.2025 GVK/RNS MRK,J W.P.Nos.32582 and 28989 of 2016 24 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION Nos. 32582 & 28989 of 2016 Date:17.10.2025 LR Copy Marked: Yes/No GVK/RNS