The High Court · 2025

Petition 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 vacate the inlerim order granted on 14-02-2024 in W F'.No.201112024 by dismissing the writ petition, in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SHYAM S AGRAWAL Counsel for the Respondent No. 1&2: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI CH. OMEENATHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI A.K. JAYAPRAKASH The Court made the following: ORDER - ,} HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.20Lr oF 202+ ORDER: Heard Sri Shyam S'Agrau'al, leerrncd counsel for petitioner, learned Government Plcadcr lor Labour on behalf of the 1st respondent, Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao' lcarned counscl on behalf of the 4tn respondenL and Sri Ch Omernathan' learned counsel for the 3'd respondent' This Writ Petition challcnges the validit-'- and 2. propriety of the order dated 22-09-2023 in l A No '12 of '20'27 in M.P.No.4 of 2079 on the hle of the Aclditional IndusLrial Tribunal-cum Adclitionai Labour Cour[, Hvderabad (2"4 respondent). By the said order, pctitioner rvas directed to deposit Rs.49,00,000/ to the credi[ ol lvl P No '] o[ 2019 u'ithin a period o[ four months from the date of tl're said ordcr' M.P.No.4 of 2Ol9 was flled b5' tlic 3'd respondent' 3. M/s DBR Mills Telugunadu Employees' Union' in Form K-3 under Section 33C(5) of the Industrial Dispurtcs Act' 1947 (for short,'the Act), with a prayer to compute thc amounl allegedl1' clue to the workers and direct petitioner to pay the same to lhe 3.d respondent with accrued interest Petitiol-icr contcnds that an agreement dated 07-03-2O17 was ente;d into under Section 1 12(3) ol thc Act be[ore thc Conciliation ']ffit:cr/.Joint Clommissioner o[ L:rbour, Hyderabad, where in thr:-y agrccd Lo pal a totai anuunt of Rs.7,O0,OO0/- in two instalr ncnts as lull and linal settlcmcrtI of all arrears, back wages, c, lnp('n].ati()n, ernd cther clucs. Subsequently, the 3'd resp,rndr:nt lilcd LA.No.12 of 2021 under Section 11 of the At't st:eking a dircction to prtitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.49,00,00O/ - in compliance u ith the Memorandum of Settlc r-rcn t dated 07 -O3-2O17. Pctitioner filed counter to the said Application, disput-ing thc clairn made by the 3'd respondent. Pe titioner states that agreement dated 07 03'2017 \\,.r s folirxl,ecl bl a memorandum of comproltlise ancl a comprornise <lect'cc in O.S.No.69 of 2OO3 (earlier O.S.No.120l of

1.?.15) on tl're lile of the XII Additional Chief Juclrle , Citl Civil Court, H\.derabad. Under the compromise, the 4'l respondetrt was to obtain title over Acs. 16.O0 of [and, whicll rvas to be dcvcloped bv pctilioner as per a developmcnl agreement. Pctitioner contr:ncls that it had the right to settli thc r,r'orkers' claims on behalf of the 4th respondent purstlant to thc conrpromise . I{or,r'ever, the 4tl' respondent, who wa:; a lcltant in DBR Mills property, opposed the compromise ;rnd initiated litigation b-v liling C.C.C.A.No.329 of 2OO3 before tlr,: High Court ) and latcr before the Hon'bie Supreme Court- This [e d to Lu,o rounds of litigation and eventual dismissal of SLP.No.5163 5164 of 2022 uide order dated l8-O4-2O22, resulting in the compromise decree being set aside and the 4th resp{rnden t being trealecl as a tenant al sufferance. It is the case of petitioner that all parties, including workmen, were fully aware at the time of enterins into the agreement dated 07-03-2017 that petitioner $.as not t:mploycr oi the said workmen and that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to them. The said settlement itself narratcd the nature of relationship, specifically referencinq the developmenl agreement dated 15-03-1999, based on w.hich development rights were granted by the 4ft respondent to petitioncr. Subsequently, the 46 respondent repudiated the conrpi-ornisc. lt is aiso stated, the 3rd respondenr filed O.S.No.293 of 2019 against petitioner for cancellation of registerecl documents executed by the original owners of the propertv in favour of petitioner. Despite attempts by petitioncr to givc cffcct to the compromise decree, including legal challengcs, Appeal was dismissed and the subsequent Special Lcave Petrtion zrlsir met with dismissal, thereby lrustrating the complomisr. 4 Ii is the contention of petitioner that the 2nd rcsoondcr-rt - Tribunal was fully aware of the d,:velopments, including frustratron of the compromise due to the conduct of the 4rh respondent and the pendency of litigation b1 the workers ol the 4,r, respondent regarding wages which had ,triginated in 20 13 :rnd continued even after the agreclnent dated O7 O3-2O17. Tl-re said M.P.No.1 of 2013 was; eventually dismissed b1- the Tribunal by order dated 13-O7 2021. Peritioner asserts that development agreeme:rl between pe tit ioncr ancl thc 4rtr respondent stood nullified due to the frustration of the compromise decree, which formerl foundation ol 12t3) agreement dated 07-03-2017. Consequently, peti[ioner hzis bccome a third party with no emplol,er employee relationship anrl rvith no 1egal authoriQr or authorisation lrom Lhe 4tl'rcspondcnt to settle any claims on its beha.f. Therefore, imposing a legal liabilify on petitioner is impermissible under larv. Pctitioner further contended that rpon being :rppr'oar:hed 1)--v workmen of the 4tt, respondent for rmpiementaLion r>f the agreement, the Assistant Commissioner of l,abour Iil. Hr.derabad, was instructed to file a criminal complarnt, and ar:cordingly, they hled Crl.M.P.No.1722 of 2023 7 ) ) be fore the XII Additional Metropolrtan Magistrate' H1'clerabacl' the present proceedings' seeking rclief similar to It is admitted that there is no employer-emplovce rclatkrnship betwcen petitioner and workmen of the 4th respondent' henr:c' pctitioncr states that the order impugned is vvithout jurisclicrion and lhcrefore, is liable to be set aside' It is stated, the Joint Commissioncr ol Labortr' Hyclcrabad addressed letter dated 25-07 -2Ola to th(' Govcrnment Pleader seeking clarification u'ith respect to a.grecmcnt dated 07-o3-2O17. The said letter narrates th., niir.' iactual chronoloS' and concludes that thcre u'ere se\'(rrztl objections raised by M/s DBR Mills Limited, rvorkmct-r and petitioncr. It was observed therein that since petitioncr is z'r tl-rircl party, the terms and conditions of the agrcemel-rt callllot llc enfort'ed. DesPite no opinion Govcrnment Pleader, the Joint Commiisioner instructcc'l tlle Assistant Commissioner to file a criminal complaint' u'hic}'r being reccived frotn thc remains pending. Furthermore, the 4d' respondcnt :idtlresscrl letter clated 04-12-2017 to the Joint Commissioner o[ L:rbour' Hyderabad clearly stating that petitioner hacl no right- to negotiate or settle the dues on behalf of the 4ti' respondent' 6 I t is aiso submittcd by petitioner that a s per Section 12 o[ thc Act, ri'hcn an industrial dispute exists, the Conciliation ()lficcr rs [o conclllct procecdings and submit a report witl-rin 14 clavs and a sottle ment, il' any is to be foru,a rded to the apprropri:rtt' (iovcrnment. Only upon sa[isfaction can lhe (ior.ernmenL rcfcr the matter to a Tribunal. In the instant case, there is lro ret:ord of compliance with thesi: procedural rc<luircmerts. tt is also contended that there is :,1so reference to eur orcicr ol status quo datcd l6-06-2008 in W.r\.M.P.No-814 of 2008 in Wnt Appeal No. 39 I of 2008, where [he Union of lirnpkrr.ees w'as arrayecl as the 7tl, respondent. It is further zlr'gur::d that a criminal complaint was filed by the Assistant [,zr bcir.rr (]omnr issioner on thc samc set of facts as, the present disputc and p:ir:iilel prosecution in two Courls rrn thc same motter is not isgallv permissible. Petitioner reiterates that it is not thc n]:lnzrqemcnt of DBR Mills, hence had no iegal status or firi:r-rs to Lrnter into any 12(3) agreement with the u trkmen. It is cm1;hasizccl thal petitioner does not fall within the definition of 'emplover'' or 'management' under the Act and therefore cannot bc sr-rbjectccl to its provisions. The definitron o{ 'settlement' ilnder Srrction 2{p) of the Act necessaril5, requires a valid 7 7 employer-workman relationship, which is absent in thc present CASC Petitioner further stales that it rvas the responsibility of the Conciliation Ofhcer to provide proper lcgal guidance to workmen regarding the parties to an-v such settlement. Despite these legal shortcomings, the Tribunal passed the impugned order directing petitioner to dcposir Rs.49,0O,000/- in M.P.No.4 of 2O19, which is illegal :rnt1 contrary to lau,. lt is finally stated that merely becausc petitioner had agreed to pay the amount which was due b-r. rhe 4tl, respondent to the employees in view of their en tering intt, development agreement in respect of the land covered by the 4,1' respondent, they could nol be directed to pay Lhe amount

4. The Joint Commissioner of Labour filed countcr stating that the present dispute pertains to petitioner and Respondents 3 and 4 and that subject matter lies exclusii.eir. between these parties. It was emphasized that the role o[ the Labour Department is purely formal in nature, therelbre, no relief can be sought against the Labour Department in this con[ext.

5. In the.counter filed on behalf of the 4tr, rcspondent it is stated that in M.P. No. 4 ol 2019, petitioner beir-rg a:l signarory., had aclmitted the Settlement under Sec -ion 12(3) of thc Act, hencc, ltre1. are liable to pay the agreed amount. It was furrl-rer zrsscr-tcil that the said Settlement is binding upon pctitioner anci '.he 3'd respondcnt, but not ul)on the 4tr' respondent, r,r,ho rvas not a party or signatory to Setlement. It is argr;eC that conlentions raised by petitioner extenc beyond the scopc of the order passed by thc Tribunal.

6. The 1'a respondcnt - Union filed a coltnter stating '.hat petrtioncr, in its counler to the original petition, admitted the SeLllcmcnt under Section 12(3) and expressed u'illingness to deposit the :rgrced amount until disposai of the main miscellancous pctition. Hou.cver, they raised objections, such as non-disclosur-c ol ;lrrrber ol workers by the Labour Department anci claimcd tha1. iL \^,as r,villing to deposit and par. the agreed amount ol Rs. 49.00,OO0/ if such information were provided. It rvas further statecl tl'rat petitioner had earlier settl,:d claims of some worker-s through the Memorandum of Settk:ment dated 07 -O3 '2017 . 'l'hi s indicates tha[ petitioner, after convincing rvorkers cl a comprehensive hnancial resolutirtn, delayed execrition r,r'ithoui reason and laler, attempted to escape the liabilities vohrntai'ily undertaken in the settlemer.t when the rnatter \^ as takon before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rigl'rtly held W I that petitioner's objections and apprehensions lacked merlt and that. the amount should be deposited in court' It is the furthcr case of the 3"1 respondent that petitione r's claim that Memorandum of Sel tlement dated 07 -O3-2017 became unenforceable due to dismissal of SLP Nos' 5163 5164 of 2022 on l8-O4-2O22 is lalse Petitioner intentionally suppressed details of prior proceedings before the trial Court and the High Court before moving the Hon'ble Supremc Court. The SLPs' u'ere dismissed at the threshold solely on thc ground of limitation, due to a delal' of 169 L da1's' andnotonmerits.PetitionerwasaCCuSedofmisrepresentatirln, abuse ol process, and misleading the Court Hence' they are not entitled Lo anY relief lt was aiso submitted that parties and third parties to O.S. No.69 of 2003 had hled C'C'C'A Nos' 35O' 74' 329 ol 2003 and C.C.C-A. No. 131 of 2OO4 chalienging the compromise decree clated 03-04-2003' All the appeals were dismisscd by a common judgment dated L2-O4-2OO4 conFrrming lhe compromise clecree. The matter was remanded to the trial court solely for verifyrng the suit schedule propcrty's tnarket valuc and court fee. SLP Nos 1363O of 2O05 and 13633 of 2005 s'cre filed beforc the Supreme Court, whictl we re dismissed on l0 21 08 2005. Revic.,r., pe titions against the dismiss;al rncre also disn-rissed on ).4 -OB-2OO5. Post remand, alcr multiple aCjournmen Ls, suiL r.r,as dismissed on 28-O4-2Ol ii b1. the XIII Atlcil. Ciiief .Juclgt:, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, as plaintilfs lailecl cou-t fee. Petitioner later filcd C.C.C.A. No. 66 of 2O2O aggrievcd by the dismissal judgmcnt dated 2B-O4-2015, along u,ith I.A. No. 1 of 2020 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to cond,rne thc delay of 1691 davs. This petition u,as dismissed on 07-Ol-2022. Pctitionr:r filed SLP Nos. 5163-5164 of 2022. which were disrnrssed b1. tht: Supreme Court on 18-04-2022. Hence, peLil,iorrer's claim that settlement dated 07-03-2017 became unenforccable is false. The petitioner was fully irware of the pending litigaiior-rs related to DBR Mills, including those dismissed much before thc date of settlement. The compromise decree in thc Appeal by DBR Mills management \\'as dismissed in 2OO4 ie- 13 1'e ars before the settlement. Therefore, petitioner cannot nor,r, cite this litigation to avoid the settlement. They volurrtarily agreed to pay Rs. 7 ,OO,OOO / - in two irLstallments- Rs. 2,OO,OOC)l- on 31 03-2017 and Rs. 5,[rO,000/- on l4-O8-2O17, but defaulted in making the payrnent desprte i volunt:rrilv scitling r,r.orker claims under Section 12(3) of the Act (,' and Rulc 60 of the Telangana State Industrial Disputes Ru-les,

1958. Petitioner informed the Commissioner of Labour and entered into the Memorandum of Settlement on 07 -O3-2OI7 , executed before the conciliation ofhcer and the .loint Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad (Twin Cities), after the suit in O.S. No. 69 of 2OO3 (Old O.S. No. 1201 of 1995) was dismissed on 28-04-2015. Hence, it is argued that petitioner is precluded from pleading tha[ seLtlement became uncnforceable due to culmination of the said suit proceedings. It is alleged that the petilioner is abusing legal process and harassing the respondents by delaying legitimate claims. It is contended that once the Memorandum of Settlement daLed 07-03-2017 was executed under Section 12(3), creating a pre existing admitted liability, petitioner is barred from questioning the proceedings initiatcd under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Acl. These proceedings u,ere initiated alter obtaining a recovery certificate under Section 33(C)( 1) It is submitted that workers were subjected to harassment and mental turmoil due to false promises of hnancial relief and empioyment and that workers u.cre forced to approach the Tribunal to enforce petitioner's admitted liabiliLy. The proceedings before the Tribunal are legal and valid. The i t2 prcsent Writ Pctition is only a continuation of deleLy tactics by thc petitio:rer. Act:ording to this respondent, pe[itioner did not inlbrrn thc 'iribur-,al about dismissal of SLPs- by thc Hon'ble Supreme Cour[ on B-A4-2O22 unlil O5-09 2O23. The orders \rrere submitted only during the hearing ol an interim Application- Petitioner had already admittcd in its counter afllclavit before the Tribunal its obligation to pay ancl cited vague reasons for ncn-payment. It did not make any efftlrt to obtain u.,orkcr details frr;rn the Labour Department, revealil-rg it-s lack of rntention to comply. Furthermore, petitioner concealed filing of this Writ Petition and the ordcr ol stay obtaincd thercin. They dicl not even file a memo to inform the Tribunal and falsely allegcd Lhat Tribunal \\ras proceeding despite the s1ay. The trial hacl alread1, commcnced and cross examination w:Ls completed by pctrtioner. To delay proceedings and avoid L:re outcome, pe titioner approached this Court after four year:;. Pctitioner, having volun tarill' subjected itself to the provision s of the Act, canrlot now claim that the Act is not applicable to it

7. The Tribunal in the order impugned recorded that petitionet from the very inception honestly has becn saying that thev are readv to pay the amount to the worket-s w'ho were ',r,olking as on Lhe date of closure of DBR Milts in I 99 1. Though a II there is confusion with regard to number of workers to whom the payment is supposed to be made, at one stage, the number of workers as per the assessment made b-y the DistricL Collector is.349, subsequently, the number is risen to 4S4 Petitionet- also agreed to clear the payments to 349 workers based on the lctter addressed by the District Collector dated 27 05 2O16 which gesture was taken into consideration by the 'lribunali The Tribunal further observed that r'r'hen such u'as lhe case, the present Petition filed by a few employees seeking deposit of the amount as a measure to secure the amount cannot be denied by petitioner. As is evident from the material and from the order impugned, the Union did not want to withdrarv lhe amount' their endeavour is only to see to it that amourlt assured as per the mcmorandum of settlement should be secured The amount which was agreed upon could not be disbursed yet l'-or the litigation between petitioner and respondents' rvorkcrs shor-rld not be made to suffer. Having considered the material on rr:corcl and on

8. perusal of the order of the Tribunal, it is clear that petittoncr's primary objection is the enlorceabiliqr of settlement agreement citing frustration of the compromise decree ln O S No' 69 of 2O03 (earlier O.S. No. 1201 of 1995) and lhe related litigatir.rn l:l Hou'ever, this argument overlooks the lact tlrzrt pelitioner ','oir rntarilv c'ntcred into the Memorandum of Sel I emr:nt under Scction 12(3) Lrl' thc Industrial [)isputcs Act, 19.,.7 [rchrrc the (lryrr,'ili:rtion Offir:er and the Joint Commissioncr ol- L:rbonr, IJ-tderabad. Petitioner, having voluntarily agrecri ro pav the s'orkers thc snm of Rs- 7,00,OOO/- as part o[ thr: s('ttlcmcnl, canuoL not' sr'ek to escapc its obligations mcr<.i' duc to the complexities arising from othcr litigation. [.-urlhr:rmore , pelitioncr nr;:dc adrnissions in its plezidrngs r,jgarcling the u'orkers'cl:rinrs and its involvement in the settlcn)cnt process. 1'hcrcfole:, Ci'spitt the lechnical argument.s raisctl bv l)etitioner rcg:rrcling iack o1- e mployer-employee relationship, rt is t:videnl that thev assumcd responsibility for the u orkcrs' cl:tirns and cairnoi now clistanr-c itself from the settleme ltt.

9. Pctitirrne r raises the issuc ol frustration of conrpromise <lecrt:e, resulting lrom the dismissal ol SLF, Nos. 51b3 5l ?t4 ol' 2O')-'2 by the Hon'ble Suprcmc Cor,rt. IJo',vcvcr, this argurnenL docs not invalidale thc settlcment trndcr Section i 2(3) for it ri,:rs made in compliance with the provisions of the Act ar-rcl petitioner cannot now claim thaL it is uncnlorc<'able duc to thc' outcomc c'r I the compromise decreq in unre lzrtcd litigation. li is ljencral pr-irrr:iple of lan, of contract that when :r party agrccs 7 l5 to the terms of settlement and signs the agreement voluntarily, the said party is bound by the terms of settlement. It is not the case of petitioner that they were forced, coerced, threatened or misrepresented to enter into the memorandum of settlement' They have voluntarily undertaken the obligation to settle the workers' claims, hence, the Tribunal is well within its jurisdiction to direct them to fulfi1 this obligation.

10. Petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the Tribunal arguing that it is a third party and has no authority to. be directed to deposit the amount. However, the Tribunal's order is based on the legal obligations arlsing from lhe settlement' The Tribunal, having considered the claims of the workers and petitioner's role in the settlement, rightly exercis€d jurisdiction in directing the. latter to deposit Rs. 49,0O,00O/ ' Petitioner's objections regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction are unsubstantiated and fail to establish any valid grounds for interfering with the Tribunal's order. Despite acknowledging its liability and agreeing to pay the sum in instalments, petitioner failed to make payments in a timely manner. This delay has caused undue. hardship to workers, who have been waiting for Iinancial relief for several years. The Tribunal, in its order, rightly emphasized petitioner's failure to lulhll its obligations I t6 and directed deposit of the amount to ensure that workers' claims are addressed. 1 1 . In the light of the foregoing discussion, i[ is clear that petitioner's arguments do not warrant interlerence with the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal's direction to deposit Rs. 49,OO,OO0/- is within its jurisdiction and is consistent with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Petitioner's attempts to avoid its obligations based on technical and procedural arguments are without merit and are rejected. Therefore, Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

12. costs. 1 3. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dis:rrissed. No Consequently, the interim order dated 14 .O2.2O24 which was extended until further orders shall ar-rtomatically stand dissolved. SD/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY DFPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII I .. SECTION OFFICER Hyderabad [OUT] '1 . One CC to SRl. SHYAM S AGRAWAL Advocate IOPUC] 2. fwo CCs to GP FOR LABOUR ,High Court for the State cf Telangana at 3. Ohe CC to SRl. A.K. JAYAPRAKASH RAo,Advocate [OITUC] 4. One CC to SR!. CH. OI\4ERNATHAN, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies BIV GJP To, B Iir-., HIGH COURT DATED:2910412025 ORDER WP.No.2011 of 2024 E Sr4 il, ( c () ,) ?, 2 rr JUfl zEi Dp -,'nr,'',-'1r- iO : -l -'::.:---"t' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS G)L{, "g \* 6 I