Telangana High Court
M/S Dewan Bahadur Ramgopal Mills ... vs The State Of Telangana on 29 April, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 33361 OF 2023
O R D E R:
Heard Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Labour on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 and Sri K.V. Satya Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel on behalf of the 4th respondent.
2. The Writ Petition filed by Petitioner challenging the proceedings initiated by Respondent No.2 under Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') against Petitioner and its properties in CRLMP No. 1722 of 2023 on the file of the Hon'ble XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts at Nampally, Hyderabad. These proceedings were initiated for recovery of a sum of Rs. 30,38,00,000/- (Rupees thirty crores thirty-eight lakhs only) which was declared payable to the employees of Petitioner under a Certificate for Recovery No. B/55/2021 dated 03.01.2023. This certificate was issued based on an alleged settlement between various recognized Employees' Unions and Respondent No.3. Petitioner contends that these proceedings are illegal, 2 arbitrary, and not maintainable against Petitioner, hence, seeks to quash them.
According to Respondent No.2, Petitioner company, DBR Mills, located in Tank Bund area of Hyderabad, started its operations in 1920 and later, faced financial difficulties. It was declared as Sick Industrial Company under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985. After a series of litigations, Respondent No.3 entered into a Development Agreement with Petitioner on 15-03-1999, where Respondent No.3 allegedly undertook to settle monetary claims of workers of the mill, as per the terms of the agreement. Furthermore, Respondent No.2 contends that under two registered documents executed by Mrs. K.S. Chenai (bearing Document No.1349 of 2009 dated 27-10-2006 and Document No.1350 of 2009 dated 28-10-2006), Respondent No.3 acquired Acs.6.00 guntas of Petitioner's land, making it the absolute owner, with full rights to deal with it. Respondent No.2 also claims that Respondent No.3, exercising its ownership over the land, entered into a statutory settlement with the workers of DBR Mills under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3
On 07-03-2017, Respondent No.3 allegedly entered into a settlement with several trade unions of DBR Mills, wherein Respondent No.3 agreed to pay Rs. 7,00,000/- each to 434 workers, amounting to Rs.30,38,00,000/- in total. However, Respondent No.3 allegedly failed to comply with the terms of this settlement. Following a representation from 142 out of the 434 workers requesting recovery of amounts payable to them under the settlement, Respondent No.2 issued Certificate for Recovery of Rs. 30,38,00,000/- against Respondent No.3 and filed CRLMP against Petitioner (Opposite Party No.1) and Respondent No.3 (Opposite Party No.2) for recovery of amount as prescribed under Section 421(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is important to note that Government of Andhra Pradesh amended Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, empowering the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to recover money owed to workers as the result of a settlement of an industrial dispute, in the same manner as a fine imposed by criminal courts. Under Section 421(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, procedure for recovering such fine amounts includes issuance of a warrant for attachment and sale of any immovable property belonging to the offender. 4 Respondent No.2 invoked this section to recover settlement amount from the properties of Petitioner company, despite Petitioner being neither a party to settlement nor to proceedings before Respondent No.2. Petitioner contends that proceedings initiated against it are illegal because it was not involved in the settlement between Respondent No.3 and the workers and was never made a party to the related agreements.
Petitioner submits that Respondent No.2 wrongly presumed the validity of Development Agreement dated 15-03-1999 and the rights of ownership conferred upon Respondent No.3. It is alleged that Respondent No.2 did not verify the legality of the documents presented by Respondent No.3 and failed to seek Petitioner's response before making such a presumption. Moreover, Petitioner asserts that the alleged development agreement was superseded by a Compromise Petition filed in O.S.No.69 of 2003, which led to a Compromise Decree in 1999. This decree, however, never attained finality and was challenged for over 11 years before being dismissed in 2015. An appeal filed by Respondent No.3 was also dismissed by this Court in 2022, with strong remarks against Respondent 5 No.3 for misleading the court. The Supreme Court similarly rejected Respondent No.3's Special Leave Petition in 2022, further negating Respondent No.3's claim over the land.
Additionally, Respondent No.2 is not competent to adjudicate on the ownership rights over the land of Petitioner, and the agreements entered into by Respondent No.3 with various unions of DBR Mills under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act are also questioned. Petitioner argues that none of the Unions involved in the alleged settlement had the authority to represent the workers, as the officially-elected unions had been representing the workers and staff of DBR Mills since 1987. Furthermore, Petitioner asserts that no meeting with the Joint Commissioner of Labour (TCs) was attended by them and no third party had the authority to represent DBR Mills. Therefore, the settlement, even if executed, is not legally-binding on Petitioner.
In a memorandum dated 20-03-2017, Petitioner raised strong objection to the Joint Commissioner of Labour (TCs) regarding settlement agreement, clearly stating that DBR Mills was not a party to the agreement and that any such 6 settlement was made by unauthorized third parties. Petitioner further emphasizes that Respondent No.2 failed to verify the legitimacy of Respondent No.3's representation of Petitioner company before entering into any negotiations or settlements. As a result, it is argued that Respondent No.2 violated basic principles of natural justice and it amounts to misuse of authority.
Respondent No.2 is also criticized for issuing a verification report dated 25-05-2017, claiming that 434 employees were working at DBR Mills at the time of closure in May 1991 and awarding Rs. 7,00,000/- per employee, totaling Rs. 30.38 crores. Despite Petitioner being neither a party to the agreement nor to the subsequent proceedings, they were wrongfully named as the first respondent in CRLMP proceedings. This is seen as an attempt to cover up the illegality of Respondent No.2's actions in allowing an unauthorized settlement between third parties and unions without consulting or informing Petitioner.
Furthermore, workers from the Union of DBR Mills Displaced Workers Association filed a petition under Section 7 33-C(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming back wages for 18 years. This Petition was dismissed by this Court on 13.07.2021 and the workers subsequently filed Writ Petition No. 29970 of 2021. Some of the Unions involved in the settlement filed separate petitions in 2019 claiming payments as agreed by Respondent No.3, but Petitioner did not sign any settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act. Petitioner argues that it was wrongfully included in CRLMP proceedings.
Given these circumstances, Petitioner contends that CRLMP No. 1722 of 2023 proceedings before the Hon'ble XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad are illegal, arbitrary, and initiated without following due process of law.
3. In the counter filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated, M/s DBR Mills Limited entered into a Development Agreement dated 15-03-1999 in favour of M/s Ashish Developers and Builders (P) Limited, which is now known as Kshitij Infraventures Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Maheshwari Megaventures Ltd.). Under the terms of the Development Agreement, it was agreed that either the management of M/s DBR Mills Limited or the developer, before undertaking any 8 development activities on the property in question, must resolve the claims of the workers. However, if the developer is to settle the claims of the workers, this responsibility lies with the developer and must be settled in the account of M/s DBR Mills Limited. Clause (6) of the Agreement dated 15-03-1999 between Respondents 1 and 2 outlines this arrangement. Furthermore, Respondent No. 3, in accordance with the Development Agreement, informed the Commissioner of Labour about their undertaking to settle the workers' claims, subject to mutually- agreed terms and conditions. This action, taken in the interest of the workers, was in line with the prolonged litigation and difficulties faced by the workers. Thus, Petitioner cannot deny its joint and several liabilities and responsibilities in light of the actions taken by Respondent No. 3. This Respondent submits that the landed property bearing Survey Nos. 157/1 to 3, 158/1 & 2, 159/1 and 28, 160/1 to 28, and 161/3 to 7, covering an area of Acs.34 situated in Elchiguda, Bakaram Village was allocated to Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai pursuant to the compromise decree dated 20-10-1967 in the family partition suit O.S. No. 38 of 1967 before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Prior to the family partition decree, the 9 ancestors of Mrs. K.S. Shenoy had leased an extent of Acs.26.00 of land, part of the aforementioned survey numbers to M/s DBR Mills Limited under a lease deed dated 17th Aban 1328 Fasli (equivalent to 1918 A.D.). In 1994, M/s DBR Mills stopped paying rent to Mrs. K.S. Chenai, claiming ownership of the property under the Inams Abolition Act. This led to Mrs. Chenai filing a civil suit for eviction and damages against M/s DBR Mills (O.S. No. 1201/1995). During the pendency of the suit, Mrs. Chenai entered into an agreement of sale dated 03-12-1998 with M/s Ashish Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. (subsequently merged with M/s Maheshwari Megaventures Ltd. as per the orders of this Court dated 22-03-2005 in C.P. Nos. 201, 202, and 203 of 2004). After the various litigations concerning the mill land were resolved, culminating in the dismissal of SLP Nos. 13630-13633/05 and SLP 19446/05 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Mrs. K.S. Chenai executed two registered documents in favour of M/s Maheshwari Megaventures Ltd. (now M/s Kshitij Infraventures Ltd.) conveying an area of Acs.6.00 of land, registered under documents No. 1349/2009 dated 27-10-2006 and No. 1350/2009 dated 28-10-2006. These documents were registered 10 by the authorities as per the order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 25181 of 2005 dated 01-02-2007 and in Contempt Case No. 829/2009 dated 08-04-2009. As a result of the Supreme Court's final judgment, M/s Maheshwari Megaventures Ltd. (currently known as Kshitij Infraventures Pvt. Ltd.) has full ownership and possession of the 6-acre land and is free to deal with it as it sees fit.
It is stated, though Petitioner is not a party to the certificate for recovery amount nor to the statutory agreement, the employees involved were employed by M/s DBR Mills Limited and the employee-employer relationship exists until the full and final settlement of the workers' claims. Respondent No. 3, who entered into a development agreement with M/s Ashish Developers & Builders (P) Ltd. and later with M/s Maheshwari Megaventures Ltd. (now Kshitij Infraventures Pvt. Ltd.), is bound to the settlement. One of the clauses of the Development Agreement grants M/s Ashish Developers and Builders the liberty to enter into any statutory agreements necessary for the smooth functioning and completion of the project. The Petitioner, after completion of the project, is expected to receive 11 more than 49% share in the project, along with other amenities. According to Section 421(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which prescribes the procedure for the recovery of fines imposed by criminal courts, the Court may issue a warrant for levy of amount through attachment and sale of any immovable property belonging to the offender. As the project is a joint venture under a development agreement, all parties to the property must agree to the extent of the share of the offending party (i.e. Respondent No. 3). Thus, Petitioner is a necessary party in the petition filed before the Criminal Court.
It is also stated that these issues can be raised before the Criminal Court with all material facts and evidence. In fact, Petitioner is liable to clear full and final settlement for the workers. Respondent No. 3 has come forward to implement this settlement on behalf of Petitioner. Settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act, Condition 11, which was reproduced as Paragraph (m) of this Affidavit, clearly states that the workers have undertaken to file necessary affidavits in Writ Appeal No. 391 of 2008, Writ Petition No. 10801 of 2005 and Writ Petition No. 11349 of 2014, which are pending before this Court. 12
It is stated, Petitioner is evading the settlement of statutory dues to the employees. Despite the Labour Department and Respondent No. 3 coming forward to settle the dues, Petitioner failed to cooperate. Furthermore, under the BIFR rehabilitation scheme, Petitioner is obligated to settle both the statutory dues and the creditors' dues, including those of the workers, which remains an ongoing obligation. As such, Petitioner may agitate this issue before the Criminal Court with all available material documents to facilitate their release in the case.
4. Respondent No. 4 in the counter-affidavit states that management of petitioner company was taken over in 1985 by S. Krishnam Raju, who serves as the Chairman and Managing Director (CMD). It was soon discovered that petitioner company's mills were under the purview of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). It is clarified that petitioner company has not been closed and for all legal purposes, it continues to operate. This Respondent further affirms that the employees of petitioner company are members of the 4th Respondent Association. The petitioner company, a 13 textile mill established in 1920, had flourished in the mid-1980s with a workforce of about 5000 employees working in three shifts. However, the company began to experience a downfall due to various reasons shortly thereafter. This Respondent provides information regarding a Development Agreement executed by M/s DBR Mills Ltd. in favour of M/s Ashish Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. (now known as Kshitij Infraventures Pvt. Ltd.) on 15.03.1999. The agreement stipulates that both the management of DBR Mills and the developer are responsible for settling workers' claims before proceeding with the development activities on the subject property. Should the developer settle these claims, it would do so on behalf of DBR Mills Ltd., as per Clause (6) of the Development Agreement. Therefore, Respondent argues that the petitioner cannot deny its joint and several liabilities in the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
It is stated, the landed property, bearing Survey Numbers 157/1 to 3, 158/1 & 2, 159/1 and 28, 160/1 to 28, and 161/3 to 7, measuring a total area of 34 acres, is located at 14 Elchiguda, Bakaram Village which was allotted to M/s Khorshed Shapoor Chenai through a compromise deed dated 20.10.1967, following a family partition suit O.S. No. 38 of 1967 in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Prior to the partition decree, the ancestors of Smt. K. S. Chenai had leased Acs.26.00 of this land to M/s DBR Mills Ltd under a lease deed dated 17th Aban 1328 FASLI (corresponding to the year 1918 AD). In 1994, DBR Mills ceased making rent payments to Mrs. K.S. Chenai, claiming ownership of the land under the Inams Abolition Act, leading to the filing of a civil suit for eviction (O.S. No. 1201/1995). In the course of the litigation, Mrs. Chenai entered into an agreement to sell the property to M/s. Ashish Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd., which later merged with M/s. Maheshwari Megaventures Ltd (now Kshitij Infraventures Pvt. Ltd.).
Further, after finalization of litigation surrounding the mill land, including dismissal of SLP Nos. 13630, 13633/05, and SLP 19446/05, Mrs. K.S. Chenai executed two registered documents in favor of M/s. Maheshwari Megaventures Ltd, conveying 6 acres of land, as per documents 1349/2009 (dated 15 27.10.2006) and 1350/2009 (dated 28.10.2006). These documents were registered in accordance with the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 25181 of 2005 (dated 01.02.2007) and the directions in Contempt Case (CC) No. 829/2009 (dated 08.04.2009). As per the final settlement of this dispute, M/s. Maheshwari Megaventures Ltd (now Kshitij Infraventures Pvt. Ltd.) holds absolute ownership and possession of the said 6 acres of land and is free to deal with the property. It is asserted that although petitioner is not a direct party to the certificate for the recovery of amounts nor a party to the statutory settlement agreement, the workers involved are employees of the petitioner company. The employer-employee relationship remains intact until full and final settlement of the workers' dues. Respondent No. 3 had come forward to facilitate settlement of workers' dues on behalf of petitioner company under a development agreement between M/s Ashish Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd., later merged into M/s. Maheshwari Megaventures Ltd (now Kshitij Infraventures Pvt. Ltd.). One clause of the agreement permits the developer to enter into statutory agreements for the smooth functioning and completion of the project. Upon completion, petitioner company 16 is entitled to receive more than 40% of the share in the project along with other benefits. This Respondent highlights that Section 421(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, dealing with recovery of fines, allows the court to issue a warrant to levy amounts via the attachment and sale of immovable property owned by the offender. Therefore, as petitioner holds a share in the project, it must be made a party in any proceedings before the criminal court related to this matter. It is reiterated that petitioner is obligated to clear workers' dues. However, Respondent No. 3 has come forward to handle the implementation of the settlement on behalf of the petitioner company. This Respondent asserts that settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, clearly stipulates that the workers have agreed to file necessary affidavits, including W.A. No. 391/2008, W.P. No. 10801/2005, and W.P. No. 11349/2014, all pending before this Hon'ble Court.
It is argued that petitioner is avoiding the settlement with the workers despite the fact that both the second and third Respondents have come forward to settle the 17 statutory dues. The Respondent points out that prior to this settlement, B. Sayanarayana, the President of the 4th Respondent, and 216 workers had filed a case under the Payment of Wages Act before the relevant authority, which allowed the claim of 69 workers. Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner filed CMA No. 64 of 2017 before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. During the proceedings, the petitioner presented a memo and a copy of the 12(3) agreement and communication between the Labour Commissioner and Kshitij Infraventures Pvt. Ltd., indicating that the 4th Respondent and the workers had entered into a Memorandum of Settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 07.03.2017. According to the settlement, the workers agreed to receive Rs. 7,00,000 each as full and final settlement. The petitioner acknowledged this in cross-examination in M.P. No. 1 of 2013 before the Additional Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, where it was also admitted that the petitioner had not challenged the agreement entered into by the third Respondent with the workers in any court of law. Furthermore, the petitioner admitted the existence of a development agreement between the petitioner and the third Respondent. 18
5. Petitioner filed reply to counter of the 4th respondent stating that Respondent No.4 is not recognized as a union of petitioner company. It was formed in 2009, long after the closure of the factory in 1991. All employees are already represented by other recognized unions in various forums such as the BIFR, courts, and other judicial forums. Petitioner company was taken over by the present management in 1985- 86 at the direction of the State Government to revive the company, which was considered sick at that time. It was later registered under SICA as BIFR Case No.109/1987. The company's operations were suspended in May 1991 following an illegal disconnection of power by APSEB in violation of Government G.O.Ms.No.498 dated 21.11.1985. The legality of the closure of the mill is currently subjudice.
The employees of Petitioner have been represented by their respective unions since 1987 in BIFR, AAIFR, and in various court proceedings. In a related case ie. Writ Petition No. 11173 of 2007, this Court ordered Petitioner to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs towards the dues of workmen as decided by BIFR. This amount was deposited with IFCI (OA of BIFR) in 2008 and it 19 remains with IFCI available to be claimed by the workmen. The company is not liable to pay any additional amount beyond what has already been agreed upon by BIFR and ordered by this Court. This sum has been lying with IFCI for over 16 years and none of the employees or the unions have challenged the decisions of BIFR or the High Court nor have they filed claims for additional dues before BIFR, IFCI, or NCLT.
Petitioner denies the claims made by the Association that its members are employees of the company. Petitioner challenges the authenticity and validity of the membership claims of the Association and insists that they be held strictly accountable to provide evidence for their membership and any claims made on behalf of the company.
Regarding the Agreement between petitioner and Respondent No.3, dated 15.03.1999, it is stated that this agreement was never acted upon. Moreover, it was overridden by the compromise in OS.No.69 of 2003 between the same parties. Even if the agreement dated 15.03.1999 were valid, it did not authorize the 2nd party developer (Respondent No.3) to negotiate or settle dues of the banks or employees of petitioner 20 company. The right to negotiate these dues was solely the prerogative of petitioner company. Therefore, the claims made by Respondent No.3 in the alleged memorandum of settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, asserting their rights to negotiate and settle the dues of petitioner company, are completely false, baseless, and not binding on the petitioner.
Petitioner refers to a compromise dated 08.03.1999, where they agreed to allocate Acs.6.00 of land to the 2nd plaintiff in the eviction suit O.S.No.1201 of 1995 (new OS No.69 of 2003). This compromise was ordered by the court on 03.04.2003, but later remanded by this Court in CCCA No. 329 of 2003 on 12.04.2004 for payment of court fees by Respondent No.3. The compromise was finally rejected on 28.04.2015 for non-payment of court fees. In a later judgment, this Court in CCCA No. 66 of 2020 filed by Respondent No.3 concluded that compromise was never valid and no rights were conferred upon Respondent No.3 concerning Acs. 6.00 of land. The orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.04.2022 upheld the decision, and the alleged documents executed by Mrs. K.S. Chenai in 21 2009 (documents 1349/2009 and 1350/2009) claiming rights over the land are invalid and have no legal standing.
Petitioner emphasizes that the claims made by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 regarding the validity of the compromise and the 3rd respondent's ownership and possession rights over Acs. 6.00 of land are misleading and amounts to contempt of court. These claims violate the court's orders and the parties involved are liable for criminal action due to misrepresentation and making false statements on oath. It is argued that memorandum of settlement under Section 12(3) signed between Respondent No.4 and petitioner Association (which is an unrecognized union) along with five other old unions, was executed without the knowledge of petitioner company. This settlement was made with malicious intent of signing unions to extract money from Respondent No.4 and facilitate his attempts to unlawfully seize the property of Petitioner. Upon discovering the settlement, Petitioner addressed a letter to the Joint Commissioner of Labour (TCS), stating that none of the parties involved had the authority to 22 make any promises or meddle with the assets or liabilities of the company.
It is stated, the Recovery Petition filed by Respondent No.3 is not maintainable because Petitioner was not a party to Memorandum of Settlement or the recovery order passed by the 2nd respondent. Furthermore, the claims for dues by employees/unions have already been addressed by BIFR, and as per the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No. 11173 of 2007, petitioner deposited Rs. 50 lakhs in 2008, which is still held by IFCI (OA of BIFR) for the last 16 years. None of the unions or employees have challenged the BIFR or this Court's orders or made any claims for additional amounts before BIFR, IFCI or NCLT.
6. The core issue in this case is whether Petitioner can be held liable for the sum declared payable to the employees under the settlement entered into by Respondent No. 3. Petitioner denies any responsibility for the settlement, arguing that it was not a party to the agreement nor to the proceedings leading to issuance of Certificate for Recovery. The primary issue in this Writ Petition is whether the proceedings initiated 23 by Respondent No. 2 under Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act for the recovery of workers' dues are legally valid.
7. It is evident from the pleadings of Respondents 2 and 3 that development agreement between DBR Mills and M/s Ashish Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. (now Kshitij Infraventures Pvt. Ltd.) explicitly outlines the responsibility for settling workers' claims. The agreement stipulates that the developer, Respondent No. 3, undertook to settle workers' claims on behalf of DBR Mills. Clause (6) of the development agreement specifically provides that management of DBR Mills or the developer must resolve the claims of workers before undertaking any development activities. Therefore, Respondent No. 3's role in settling workers' claims cannot be disregarded. Moreover, the legal framework under Section 33-C(1) empowers the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to recover sums payable to workers under a settlement in the same manner as a fine imposed by a criminal court. Section 421(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code further supports the recovery mechanism. The settlement reached between Respondent No. 3 and workers, under Section 12(3) of the Act 24 was a statutory settlement and workers' dues were clearly identified in the settlement. While Petitioner was not a direct party to this settlement, the relationship between workers and Petitioner remained intact and the obligations arising from the employment contract could not be avoided by Petitioner, especially given the terms of the development agreement. The settlement under Section 12(3 was made in good faith to resolve long-pending workers' claims and Petitioner cannot evade its responsibility by relying on technicalities related to the agreement.
8. The issuance of Certificate for Recovery of Rs. 30,38,00,000/- under Section 33-C(1) is a procedural mechanism available for recovery of dues owed to workers under a statutory settlement. Section 33-C(1) authorizes the authority to issue a certificate for recovery in the same manner as a decree of the Court. Petitioner's argument that it is not a party to the settlement and therefore, cannot be subject to recovery proceedings is unsubstantiated. The workers are entitled to the dues owed to them and issuance of recovery 25 certificate was a necessary step in ensuring that they receive their rightful compensation.
9. In the light of these provisions, this Court finds that proceedings before Respondent No. 2 are not illegal per se. The fact that Petitioner was not a direct party to settlement does not preclude the possibility of its involvement in the recovery process, especially considering that workers involved were employed by Petitioner and settlement pertains to claims arising from their employment. It is also relevant that Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 had a joint responsibility under development agreement for resolving workers' claims, which implies that Petitioner cannot evade liability for settlement.
10. Furthermore, while Petitioner raises concerns regarding the legality of land transactions and the authority of unions involved in the settlement, these issues are peripheral to the central matter of workers' claims and recovery proceedings. The ownership dispute over the land as well as Petitioner's involvement in the agreements, is a separate legal issue that does not negate Petitioner's obligation to settle workers' claims. 26
11. For the reasons outlined above, this Court finds no merit in Petitioner's claims. The Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed. No costs.
12. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 29th April 2025 ksld