High Court · 2025

Judgment

2. J. 4 4 C) The Appellate Authority Cum Deputy Commissioner of Labour-1, Hyderabad. The Lower Authority Cum Assistant Commissioner of Labour-lll, Hyderabad. K.Natrajan, S/o.Late. Kuppuswamy, Aged 70 Years, Plot No.58, Adarsh Nagar East Anand Bagh, Malkajgiri (Post)-Hyderabad. IVI/.Hewlett-packard lndia Sales Pvt Ltd, Rep. by its Managing Director Block No-D, 4 th Floor, No.18, Labs Centre, [\,4adhapur-Hyderbad-500081. The Head Precision lnformation (M) P\,t Ltd, 2nd Floor, Park View, 31/6,2RT, Prakash Nagar Begumpet, Hyderabad-5000'16. lvl/s. Sumukha Consultants (Call Cenke), Rep. by its Proprietor, Ex-Captain lvlr.Varma Opp. Community Hall, Nagarjuna Nagar Ameerpet-Hyderbad- 500016.

7. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principle Secretary, Labour Employment Training Factories Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia 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 particulady one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to and in connection with the Ex-Parte Order dated.04lO2l2021 passed in S.A.l.A.No.0212019 by consequently dismissing the S.A.No.06 of 2019 ln S.A.l.A.No.02 I 2019 vide Order daled.29tO1l2O24 by upholding its Ex-Parte Order daled.O4l02l2021 passed in SA.l-A.No.02l2( 1l on the file of the First Respondent l\lpellate Authority under the Telangana Sihc F):j and Establishment Act, .l 9gB Cum t)ep rty ( )ommissioner of Labour, l-Hyd :r,rb ac-Telangana state and quash the sam,? as ilegar, unjust, contrary lo lavr ar5ilrary, perverse and violation of prinr:iples of Natural Justice and without jur s,llctic n lA NO: 1 OF 2a2,+ Petition rr.dr r Section '151 CPC praying that in the r;irr;umsrances stated in the affidavit filed rn s trpport of the petition, the High court rnay be rleased to stay of the operatir rn .f the Ex-parte order dated. o4-u2_-20 r.1 passed in s-A-1.A.No.02120 9 ;rs well as the Dismissal order dated.29.o1-t 024 passed in S.A.No. 06 of 1r019 rr S.A.r.A. No. 02 / 2019 on the file of the Fi st Respondent Appellate Au ro -it' herein Under section 53 of rr:rangan; r shops and Establishment r\cr, 1188 and the show cause Notice daterj. :zo-01.,2022 issued in S.E.No.'1 5/201C ry tre Second Respondent Lower Aulhority ,lum Assistant Commissioner O l_ rbour-lll, Hyderabad pending disposal cf t.re 3[eys \M1t1 petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 petition Un.er 3ection j51 CpC praying that in the circurrstences stated in the affidavit file I rn :; rpport of the petition, the High Cout rnay re pleased to permit the petitil)r er respondent No.3 to withdraw the amount of Rs.82,433=00 deposited by th: 'rur i: petrtioner pursuant to the orders persse,ci b , this Hon,bre court dated 1-3 )-(2' i. w.P.No.5545 of 20 24 in the interest of rust( e. Counsel for the peti :ioner: SRI V. SIDDHARTHA GOUD Counsel for the Resl)ondent Nos.1,2 and 7: Gp FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Resl)ondent No.3: SMT. A. V.S. LAXMI Counsel for the Rerslr,:ndent Nos.4,5 and 6:--- The Court made the rrllowing: ORDER 7 wp 5545_2024 NBK, , - THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.5545 of 2024 ORDER: The case at hand is that the 3'd respondent-Mr. K. Natarajan, a retiree from the Indian Air Force as a Civilian Group-D employee, joined the petitioner-lWs Private Eye (P) Ltd. (a Security services company), as a Security Guard in the year 2006, and was posted to work at 6th respondent- M/s Sumukha Consultants (Call Centre) at Ameerpet, Hyderabad, from

04.06.2007 to 22.12.2007.It is alteged by the 3'd respondent-workman that he was made to work for 12 hours per day, without weekly off, without overtime allowance, and without PF or ESI benefits, and therefore he tendered his resignation letter and demanded the petitioner-Company to pay his Salary Overtime allowance, Compensation in lieu of weekly-off, Provident Fund, ESI benefit, Bonus, and other benefits. As no payment was made, he filed a Claim petition before the Authority under Section 50/5 1 of' the Telangana Shops & Establishments Act (for short, "the Assistant Commissioner of Labour"), by filing S.E.No.15 of 2010, seeking to direct the petitioner-Company to pay the due amounts under the claim petition. Notices were served on the parties and the petitioner-Company, filed vakalat, and also contested the matter. The Assistant Commissioner, after due enquiry, observed that under Section 51(l) of the Act, an application for payment of wages due and payable by the employer, should be filed within one year from the date on which the wages/amounts fell due; whereas in the instant case, the claims made by the 3'd respondent-workman pertains to the year 2007 and the claim petition (S.E.No.15 of 2010) is filed after the period of timitation, and further there is no separate Condone-Delay petition I \ 2 wp 5545_2024 N8K, J seeking c()n lonarion of delay, and therefore dismissr:d tbe cl;rim petition by Order datt.d I , .t,2.2018 on the ground of delay. Chall,:nq lg the dismissal Order passed bv the 2, ,1 respondent_ Assistant r-,nrrrissioner in S.E.No. l5 of 2010, dated 12.01 .201g, the 3.d respondenr-,',orrtnan filed S.A.I.A.No.Q2 of 2019 be[tre the .r respondent_ Authority ur de 'r Secrion 53( I ) of the Telangana Sh.ps & E stablishments Act, 1988 (firr:;h,rrt. ,the Appellate Authority,). Notices rvere served on the petitioner-( )r, nt:a,1, (as well as on respondent Nos.4 to 6 hert in); however, they failed tc, al) rear and accordingly they were set ex porre., he Appellate Authority, try o nler dated 04.02.202 r, held that the 3'c responc ent-workman is entitled flrr th: rvages/amounts, and directed the petir.ioner_C ompany (and respondent Nos..l to 6 herein), to pay the amount of Rs. g5.1.167.91/_ with simple interesr tt ,io/o per annum from 22.11-200g till the ,late of deposit of the amount. Seekinl, t. ser aside the ex parte order dated 04.o2.zo2 , and arso to stay the Sho'v (l ruse notice dated 22.12.2022 issut:d ry t -re Assistant commissiorer r,r'Labour, under Section 4g of the Act, th.: petitioner- Company filer irrtrlocutory applications in S..A.I.A.No.2 rtl2(rl9 (now re_ numbered as S.A. \1o.6 of 2019 before the Appellate Author.itv. The Aplrgll;1.g Authority, by Order d,ated,29.0l.l)011.1, drsmissed the interlocutory anp igations, and confirmed the Order date<l 04.02. 102 I passed in S.A.I.A.No '.1 ct 2019 (renumbered as S.A.No.6 ot-2() t9) Aggrieved thereby, the p e r iti :n er-Company filed this writ petition. 2. Heard Mr. C Sridhar, leamed counsel for the pctitioner _Company; and learned C o , e'rr nent pleader for Labour, appearing fbr the r.r rsp6nflgn1s. Perused the re ,c, trtl r. i:,'tlt. ..4, . ._.4.8+ry&:: rt r' I 3 wP 5545 2024 NBK, J Leamed counsel for the petitioner-Company mainly contends that the

3. 3'd respondent-workman absconded from duty, and made false claims about overtime duty and non-issuance of ESI Card; and further the records relating to the alleged claims might have been destroyed as the records are more than three years otd. It is contended that the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner had rightly dismissed the claim of the 3'd respondent on the $ respondent-Appellate Authority, passed er ground of delay; however, the I parte orders allowing the claim petition, and therefore the impugned orders are liable to be set aside- He relies on the judgment of this Court in M/s Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Appellate Authority under Section a8(1) of the A.P. Shops & Establishments Act, 1988t, and also Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan2 to contend that the writ Court in a supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 can adjudicate error of law, lack ofjurisdiction, procedural impropriety, or violations of naturaljustice, but cannot re-evaluate factual findings; and that in the instant case, the petitioner-Company was set ex parte while passing the impugned Orders directing payment of alleged amounts, and the same is violation of principles of natural justice, and therefore the impugned Orders are liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, leamed Government Pleader contends that the Telangana Shops and Establishments Act, is a welfare legislation and the claim petition has been contested before the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner; however, upon dismissal of the petition on the ground of delay, the 3'd respondent-workman approached the Appellate Authority by filing an application (S.A.I.A.No.2 of 2019), and notices were issued to all the parties 1 WpNo-17453 of2017, dated 04.05.zozo 2 7964 AtR 4i7 \j 4 w p _5545 _2024 N8K, J in the said appli:ation; and notices have been recei.red ry t )e petitioner- Company anr r,:r;Irondent Nos.4 to 6 herein, however. they fa Jed to appear before the I.u holity'. Therefore, the Appellate Authoritl,, kt:epir rg in view the claims mad:.rnrl i.[so the grounds urged before the 2nd responc ent-Assistant Commissionerr', rl rected the petitioner-Company to pa.i th: amount of Rs.85,867.9r 1 - ,r.ith simple interest at 60/o per annur fronr 2 1.1 1.2008 till the date of rle,rcr; t. and there is no illegality or procedural rmpr rpriety in the impugned orc ers

5. Having considered the respective submissions and ;rerus.rd the record, admittedly thi: 3"r respondent-workman was appointe<l as iiecl rity Guard in the petitionr:r C,)nrpany; and the 3'd respondent filed a claim p.:tition before the 2nd resp,tnde rtt-Assistant Commissioner alleging that he is an employee under the p,1i..ic,ner-Company and, during the peri<xl 0,1.06.2007 to

22.12.2007. he 'ras posted to work as Security Guard at 6'tr resrpondent-Mis Sumukha Cor rsr ltants Call Centre, and the 3'd respondr:nt sent ir resignation letter to the petrtioner-Company, apart lrom demanding to pzv the wages, other allou'rrn .:e r preftaining to Overtime, and PF etc. 'I he clajn petition was dismissed on ht: g.round of delay.

6. Aggr e', e,i by the dismissal of his claim petitior', the 3'' respondent- workman fi eil ar rpplication before the I't respondent-Ap:ellzrte Authority; and the Apperll:.te Authority allowed the application, vi,1e t)re impugned Order dated O.t 02.2021, with an observation that thl Shops & Establishme'nrs ,\ct is a welfare legislation, and the 2nd lesF ond,:nt-Assistant Commissione ,- trllht to have taken up the claim petit; on and ,liscussed the aspect of dela,,, 'rrl.her than dismissing the claim petitirtn ar. the threshold on the ground of delav. The Appellate Authority further noted in tl.re impugned Ordelthat n:t c( s \vere served on the petitioner-Compaly (ancl:tlsoon other 5 wp 5545_2024 N8K. J respondents), but they did not appear to represent their case despite receiving notices.

7. At this juncture, it may be noted that the 3'd respondent-workman had earlier approached this Court in W.P.No.3l126 of 2011, challenging the dismissal of I.A.No.4 0f 2011 in s.E No.15 0f 2010 vide order dated ll.O4.2Oll passed by the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner' I'A'No'4 of 2011 was an application filed by the workman seeking to direct the petitioner-company to produce relevant documents/records relating to the claim petition of the workman. This court disposed of the writ petition by Order dated 30.01-2012 by observing as follows: "5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the first respondent is ready to produce whatever records available with him'

6. ln view of the same, the impugned order is set aside and the second respondent is directed to pass approPriate orders directing the first respondent to produce the necessary documents, within a period of four weeks from today. lf any documents relevant are not produced, the Authority may draw adverse inferqnce against the first resPondent'" It is unrebutted contention of the 3'd respondent-workman in the 8. counter affrdavit that the documents, namely, Appointment Order, Attendance Register, Duty Register, Payment Sheets from 09'03'2006 to 02.12.2007, Payment Receipts in ESI & PF Offices along with ESI and PF numbers and Employer Code Number allotted to the employees by ESI & PF Offices during the period from 09.03.2006 to 22.12.2007, were to be produced by the petitioner-company in compliance of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.3 1126 of 2011, however, the documents have not been 6 w p-5545 _2014 NBK, J I produced till latt:. and therefore adverse inference hare to be drawn by the respondent-ar tthc,rities as directed by this Court; and the ,:ont,:ntion sought to be raised tJrar [he records "might" have been destroyed as rhey are three years old, is onl.' dilatory tactic to prolong the litigation anti der y the rightful claim of the 3"1 r:spondent g. It is t,r lre n c,ted that the 3'd respondent-workman joined 1 're petitioner- Company as Se ctrrity Guard and therefore the petitioner'-C ornpany is the employer c,f 3'r respondent. The petitioner-Company, beir g a security services cornllan r' posted the 3'd respondent to work rs .Secu -itv Guard in the premises r1 u.l' respondent-Call Centre, at the relevant po nt of time in the year 20(17 A(Lnittedly, the 3'd respondent is not thr: cu:;todiirn of records of petitioner-( 'o'npany, and therefore the 3'd responden' -u',rrktt Lan cannot be expected to pro virle documentary proof for his clairn;; rlthe' the onus of proving/dispr,.x irrl1 the claim of 3'd respondent rests on ttre petitioner- Company a; t is the employer and also custodian ol'the ern rloyee duties and salary re( orcs. Therefore, the 3'd respondent-worl:man hrs discharged his liability hv r ghtfully seeking the petitioner-Com rany to produce the documents br:fi:re the respondent-authorities so that th(: \,e-acity of his claims can tre ve rihed with the records held by the petitioner-( ompany.

10. In the ils iu)t case when there is a specific direction of this Court in WP.No.3 11 2( ol l:01 1 , dated 30.01.2012, directing the petitioler-Company to produce rrlerant records pertaining to the clainr petiticn of the 3'd respondent- worl:r an, and when the fact remains thal th,: petitioner- Company h ls n rt produced the records, respondent-r:utl-roriti.rs cannot be faulted for rlr;iu ing an adverse inference against the oerition,:r-Company. Furthermore , tlr,: petitioner-Company filed vakalrrt beli,re the 2"d respondent--\r si ;ri,nt Commissioner of Labour and ccnt(lste( the mattet \- t 7 wP _5545 _20)4 NBK, I wherein the claim petition was dismissed on the ground of delay. Upon the 3'd respondent-workman approaching the l't respondent-Appellate Authority challenging the dismissal of his claim petition, the Appellate Authority has issued notices to the petitioner-Company (and also to respondent Nos.4 to 6); and the notices were acknowledged by the petitioner-Company by sending the following e-mail: "This is with reference the mail below. We have received the letter Today only. So we are not able to attend the same today. Please give a fresh date for the same in advance'" 1 1 . A perusal of the above acknowledgement by the petitioner-Company shows that the petitioner-Company received the notices, and was aware of the proceedings before the AppeIlate Authority; and the petitioner-Company ought to have promptly appeared before the Authority. Having failed to do so, the petitioner-Company cannot now challenge the impugned Orders' as it has become clear before the authorities that the petitioner-Company, by not filing the relevant documents, and by not appearing in the matters, intends to drag on the proceedings endlessly and deny the wages/allowances claimed by the.3.d respondent; and therefore in.the light of specific orders of this court in w.P.No.3 1126 0f 2011 that if the relevant records/documents are not fumished before the authorities, adverse inference can be drawn, there is no illegality in the impugned orders directing the petitioner- Company to pay the amounts to the 3'd respondent-workman'

12. Further, in view of the aforesaid discussion that the petitioner- Company being the employer of the 3'd respondent-workman, and further the 3.d respondent only discharges duties as Security Guard at different client locations of the petitioner-company, based on the instructions of the t I \ .t 8 wp _5545 _2024 NBK, J petitioner-Co x ra t ) . this Court does not see any jurisdi':tior al emor in entertaining thr c:lrtim petition by the respondent-autholitie s. Ir.Lrthetmore, the observaticr Ls tnade by the l't respondent-Appella.e r\uth rrity while condoning th,: ,icler', and allowilg the Ctaim petition oi the i'r 'espondent, are reasonable ju;r and equitable in the facts and citcutnstarces of the present case. Ir tf lLt view of the matter, the writ petition is ,]evc id of merit, and liable to he disnrissed.

13. Accorcit gll, the writ petition is dismissed. No ci:sts Tht petitioner- Company shatl pa1 :he amount Rs.85,867.911-, together',vitlt sin ple interest at 6oh per annulr- i.s directed by the 1't respondent-Appe [lat,: Au.hority vide the impugnec ()rri:: dated 04.02-2021, within two wee'l<s liont the date of receipt of a copv oithis order. Miscellaneous petitions prrndilr!. f any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SiD/.P. PI)NNA KRISHNA ASSISTAT,T REGISTRAR SE,llTlON OFFICER The Appe Ia e r Authority Cum Deputy Commissioner of L.abou.-1, Hyderabad. The Lovrer I rrthority Cum Assistant Commissioner of Labour. lll, Hyderabad. The Prirrc plr: ,Siecretary,-labour Employment Traininil Facto.r :s Department, Secreta-rer. fhe State of Telangana, Hyderabad. One CC to li-i V. Siddhartha Goud, Advocate [OpU{)] Two CCs .o (lP for Labour, High Court for the State of Telan lana. at Hyderai,a J l:,l.JTl One CC tr,Srr:. A.V.S Laxmi, Advocate[Opuc] Two CD C op i,,. s i|* To, 1 2 2 4 ( 6 7 TJ GJP HIGH COUIIT CC TODAY DATED:21 lll2l202i ORDER WP.No.SS45 ot 2024 ,4 l: I.t' o ,1 l.i .' ?s .C-) '.4 r) DISPOSNG OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ( 'l-\ r' ;6 6