Telangana High Court
The Management Of Deccan College Of ... vs The Labour Courtiii on 20 December, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.10790 OF 2023
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"...to issue Writ, Order or Direction 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-III, Hyderabad and quash its award dated 06.01.2016, passed in I.D. No.164 of 2009 (published vide G.O. Rt.No.401 dated 20.05.2016) as against the writ Petitioner, declaring the same as wholly illegal, unconstitutional, violation of the provisions of I.D.Act and consequently declare that the E.P.No.4 of 2022 in I.D.No.164 of 2009, is not maintainable as against the Writ Petitioner and pass..."
2. Heard Sri P.Pandu Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Services-II for respondent No.1 and Sri M.Vijay Kumar Goud, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the material available on record.
3. The facts of the case are that respondent No.2 filed I.D.No.164 of 2009 before respondent No.1 i.e., Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, under Section 2-A (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'I.D. Act') seeking to reinstate her into service with continuity of service, full back wages and with all other attendant benefits by setting aside the dismissal order, dated 07.05.2008 passed by the petitioner. Respondent No.1/Labour Court, after hearing both sides, vide Award dated 06.01.2016, has directed the petitioner to reinstate respondent No.2 into service with continuity 2 PK,J Wp_10790_2023 of service, back wages and attendant benefits 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 No.2 from 1991 upto the date of removal i.e., 07.05.2008 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.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1/Labour Court failed to note that the very application filed under Section 2-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 that the petitioner had terminated the services of respondent No.2, as such, no relief could have been granted against the petitioner; respondent No.1/Labour Court ought to have seen that the petitioner neither falls within the definition of 'Employer' as defined in Section 2(g) of the I.D. Act nor within the definition of 'Industry' as defined in Section 2(J) of the I.D. Act or respondent No.2 falls within the definition of 'Workman' 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 defined in Section 2(K) of the I.D. Act; respondent No.1/Labour 3 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 under Section 2 of the I.D. Act. It is further submitted that respondent No.1/Labour Court ought to have seen that the petitioner is an Educational Trust and runs on no profit motive and is charitable in nature, and as such, does not fall within the definition of 'Industry'. Therefore, respondent No.1/Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application and pass the said Award. Respondent No.1/Labour Court ought to have seen that the petitioner is excluded from the definition of 'industry' as defined under Section 2 (J) (2) of the I.D. Act as substituted by Act 46 of 1982. Respondent No.1/Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining the application under Section 2 (A) (2) of the I.D. Act. Therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated. Hence, learned counsel prays this Court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the Award, dated 06.01.2016 passed by respondent No.1/Labour Court.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 joined in the organization as Scavenger in the year, 1991 and worked continuously till the date of oral termination i.e., 07.05.2008. Thereafter, since respondent No.2 4 PK,J Wp_10790_2023 terminated the petitioner from discharging her duties, she was constrained to file I.D.No.164 of 2009 before respondent No.1/Labour Court. Respondent No.1/Labour Court has discussed elaborately with regard to the service of respondent No.2 with the petitioner as per the identity card issued by the petitioner. It is further submitted that respondent No.1/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 there 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.
6. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties.
7. A perusal of the record discloses that respondent No.2 filed I.D.No.164 of 2009 before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, under Section 2-A (2) of I.D. Act and respondent No.1/Labour Court, vide Award dated 06.01.2016, has directed the petitioner to reinstate respondent No.2 into service with continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits 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 No.2 from 5 PK,J Wp_10790_2023 1991 upto the date of removal i.e., 07.05.2008 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.
8. Before delving into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to note that the impugned Award in I.D.No.164 of 2009 was passed by respondent No.1/Labour Court on 06.01.2016 and the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition in the year 2023 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 challenge the impugned Award in a timely manner.
9. As regards delay in approaching this Court, a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 13.12.2021 in Writ Appeal Nos.1660 of 2018 and 593 of 2016, 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.
10. In the present case, since there is an 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 alone. 6
PK,J Wp_10790_2023
11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK Date : 20.12.2024.
TMK