The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High col.t'n.',aiy o" pr"r..o to issue a writ, order or direction more particurarry a writ In ftre nature'J c!,iilrrn calling for the records pertaining to s.A. No. oa oi zozs o.r.i" nrti-,"i,v',q'op"ir"o under Section 53 (i) of rhe Terangana Shops And tstabrishments Act, 1988 and Deputy commissioner of Labour-r, and records pertaining to s.E. no 10 of 2022 l:r : JF :[i d:i'xf;t,lifu tl tm$iil#:":# Slx'i;Bfll"J.:i:Ti:;["."1"'fl i'#;l*trui.iii,iiono.ndia jurisdiction and violative ol (PRAYER AMENDED AS PER c o DT 08 11 2O24lN lA.No 4/2024) A NO: oF2o24 Petition under Section 151 CPC PraYing that in the ctrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suPP ort of the Petition, the High Court maY be Pleased to grant stay of all f urther Proceeding s pursuant to the ord er dated 16-03-2 024 Passed in S.A No 06 of 2023 before AuthoritY APPo inted under Section 53 (1) of The Telanga na ShoPs And Establishments Act, 19BB and DePutY C ommissioner of Labour-l Pending disPosal of the above Writ Petition and Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Co urt may deem fit and proPer in the intere st of Justice tn 1 the interest of .iustice lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Sectton 1 51 CPC praying thal in the circumstances stated in t'h;;ti"til;-in" High i"; U#:f"":;:3,t03[1 n.on' the affidavit rreo rn suppori $,:.1;# ;;S.:,'l"*f 'll"J,';;, 3i; 3?o'" IA NO: 30F 2024 "r Between:

1. Z n AND 1 P Venuoooal, S/o P Veera Mallaih A/a 50 years'former Senior itirnaoei ( Celtiss). s'r"t r lll8'E#""tiu?*td' Head quarters' HYderabad R/o Fiat No '105 nn"'onJXi#tt'Jntq s'i r'rugar cdlonv' Hyderabad- 5oo 073 Former Accounts iii:[51ts3hiJi,3;fi 3Yi2,''[flt?ff iat%1'"ilili""!';a'a;i;coionv' iiirr"Zsrr.. Ranga ReddY District '"rl'l*;;4'qi,x#,'*g:.,f-q{3i#-{*ff :fl41::; Pradesh. (Under Control o ,..PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6/RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 3?[$,iJi6iBBTEi,L'41"ft ",i.u'is8:eE,!J^"d:i,ffill'/-']['fli* pIiT#'h''"iFil;xs,?5ts"*'"";ii'i.1ltsrB"';il3i1i3"3 "ye'rt' occ.'. private service R/o H No' Naoabhusanam, ag"o uo6'i"51 tvledchal - lr4alkajgiri Qlt_tA. Road No oa, n'.|^Jir'vl-'r.irgri District - 500068 -NSgote

2. State of Telanr o r ii n ffi ;fl?:? #if, 3#,j sJ?s, 93::.",:,,?j? g;,i.1 3. The Authoritv r "a jliffi c;;;;;;',r"','Er?'"i:33|'- rrr' r' Anjaiah Karmik; Bha;;r, Hlr.c :ffi lf#rJ",:,3"#,f i1"'Ji,l?*%:?fl ..xs,:.:H 1 3 :jj,?:?3f5' ", 'tii,f ,[itrx#x""{,f,,Til{f . (Respondent No.2 to 4 are not necessary parties to this petition) [tiii{{[ifli8,.T,1,.33H.#t"1.,",., Labour _ l, T. Ar ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PETITIONER Petition under Section- 151 cpc praying that-in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit fired in suooort.or *,e peiiti"oi. If" il,giit"rrt may be preased to vacate the order dated 05-06-202+passJo-rn in ni" ,'xi'z'o 24 in w.p.No .r38.r0 and dismiss the W p. No l:ntonr[.i*,in Counset for the petitioner: SRl. MALIPEDDI SRINIVAS REDDY ff[Lr"l". rhe Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRt RELA KRTSHNA SWAMY AGp FoR "r"rjri, *",. of zo24 Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6: SRI G. VIJAYA SARADHI The Court made the following: ORDER 1 wp-13810-2024 NBK, I CE NA GE SH BHEEMA TH EHoN' BLESRI JU TIT TPE STI IO NN o.1 3810 of202+ ORDER:

16.o3.zoz4passed The petitioner-Cettiss Therapeutics Private Limited is a Company re gistered under the c ompan ies *t', "]];i- :T ::' ;'J:,:":H: a]na.'t, by calling for the records peftarnt by the Authoriry Appointed under Section 53(1) of rhe Telangana Shops and Establishments Act' 1988 & Deputy Commissioner "iri*'" and the o* o*"0 t'::':':.:.:"1I:::::1H:. under Section 50 of the Act & Assistant Commtt quash the orders' as the same are illegal' arbitrary' without jurisdiction and violative of Articles l4' 19' and 21 of the Constitution of India' 2. Heard Mr' Malipeddi Srinivas Reddy' learned counsel for the petitioner-Company; Mr' R' Krishnaswamy' leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Labour for respondent Nos'1 to 3; and Mr' G' Vijaya Saradhi, Ieamed counsel for respondents 4 to 6' Perused the record' 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner' while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit' essentially contends that the respondent- Authorities does not have jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition; that the term 'wages' does not include the Travetling Allowance' HRA' Conveyance Allowance" LTA etc'' as claimed by the unofficial respondents/workmen' and that the Authority is empowered to adjudicate non-payment ofwages as defined under Section 2(23)(e) ofthe Act; that the workmen worked in a Managerial capacity and therefore the provisions of the Act do not appty in the case of the workmen' and the 2 wp-13810_2024 NBK, J petitioner-Company is exempted under Section 73(l)(a)of the Act; that the petitioner-Company was not aware of the proceedings and its legal implications and it was only after receipt of Show cause notice dated 02.05.2024 that too belatedly served by the 3d respondenlAppellate Authority, the petitioner_Company came to know of the impugned proceedings; and the workmen have filed Execution petition before the 3'd respondent seeking implementation of the impugned Award; and therefore this court may set aside the impugned orders as being i,egal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3_Appellate Authority, based on the counter affidavit, essentiaily contends that the petitioner was represented through their counser in the proceedings herd before the respondent-Authorities and the petitioner therefore cannot contend that he was unaware of the proceedings or its legar imprications; that mere nomenclature / designation of the post being ,.manager,, would not be sufficient to claim exemption under Section 73, as such a person with a designated title of manager is required to have control over the affairs of the company to claim such exemption; that.the Hon,ble Supreme Court in T. Prem Sagar vs. The Standard Vacuum Oil Company, Madrasr though did not lay down an exhaustive list of criteria as to what or which factor conclude a person as ,,Manager,, so as to be exempt under Section 73, however, broadly oullin.a certain criteria which are not satisfied by the workmen and therefore petitioner_Company cannot seek exemption against the petitioners; that the term "wages,' includes and excrudes certain components and also specifies what constitute an authorized 1198s AtR 111 3 wp,13810,2O24 NBK, J deduction and the circumstances that affect such deduction; that the claim of the workmen is covered by the meaning as defined under Sub-section 2l of Section 2 of the'Ielangana Shops and Estabtishments Act' 1988; and therefore the challenge laid against the impugned orders cannot sustain and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed' 5. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it is to be noted that from a perusal of the material papers filed with the writ affidavit, and also the counter affidavit of respondent No'3' particularly the appointment letters (for example Ex'Al-appointment lefter dated 25.O7.2ll8of the workman-Mr' P' Venugopal)' it is evident that the workmen are the employees of petitioner-Company' As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T' Prem Sagar (supra)' it is relevant to note that mere nomenclature or designation using the tetm "manager" does not by itself impart the connotation of the term "Manager" as per Section 73 of the Act wherein it is specified that such a person (who is altegedly to be a Manager) should have control over the affairs of the Company; thereby the phrase "control over the affairs of the company" is significant under Section 73'The phrase "control over the affairs ofthe company" implies an inherent power and responsibility to represent the employer, to hire and remove the employees' to act as an authority in disciplinary matters, to supervise the work of other employees of the organization, to have a say/authority in the administration and operation of the company and similar responsibilities' 6. From a perusal of the writ affidavit' it cannot be said that the respondents 4 to 6 (i'e', workmen herein) are performing such of the aboveorsimilarduties,forthepetitioner-Companytoclaimthatthe a/ ,{ 4 wP 13AL0'2024 NB( l workmen are Managers and therefore the the petitioner-Company exempted unaer sectio"n ,, ;:;- ;:: :"- n 73 of the Act. Fufther, rhe petitioner filed counter affidavit before the ot''uo Authority-Assistant commissioner in S.E.No.r0 of2022uro petitioner therefore cannot contend that he was not advised or was not about the proceedings' Moreover, it is the specific contention orrnu*"" respondent No'3-Appellate Authority, based on record, that the petitio bv their counser bur the petirionersropped,_.J; ;:JI".;,J 7 ' At this juncfure' it is rerevant to refer to Sub-section 23 0f Section 2 0f the Telangana Shops and Establishments Act, lggg, reads as folrows: (:"1 : ;':i:: ; #:: :; ::;l ::, * ra, i o n, w h e, he r lr w ay or expressed in rerms o1*"n"v * capa'ble .f b";;; ;;qtetno$e :; i ;; ;,",,1 ;:; : l, #f #. r{ r!i, ; n :l ". i ",1 * p r.y *i,,. " emptoyee in respect of hi, "*pbw;;;;;';;;:;#r"" in such e mpl oyment. a nd i nci ude.r (a) any remuneration payable uncler any settlement between the parties o, ord"r./., ;;;;;r;;'r.;;;r*, (b) any remuneration to which the employee is entitled in respect of overtime work or hdid;;; or], U"* period; (c) any additional remuneration payable under the terms of employment, whether cottid i borrc o,riy ory other name,. (d) yy sum which by reason of the termination o;/. employment of the employee is payable unc{er any law, contract or instrument which provides for rhe piyment of such sum, whether with or withoui tleducfioin, tu, does not provide for the time within which the payment is to be made, 5 wp 11810 2024 NB(, J under any 'itl'ed (e) any sum ttt whic'h the employee"is e':'r scheme Jramed"'7il1-"''''i 7o' rhe rimc being rn i'""' A"t does not include'' In this connection' it may be noted that the claim petition with 8. regard to non-payment of amounts was regarding the wages that have not been paid by the petitioner-Company to the workmen for the work already performed by them' Further' the term "'v4ges" as per sub-section 23 of Section 2 of the Act includes any component that is payable in terms of money lor the work that has been performed or undertaken by the workmen; and the petitioner-Company is therefore tiable to pay the arnounts that are due and payable for the work already performed at the relevant point of time' The exclusions of House Rent Allowance etc'' under the Act cannot be applied to the arrears liable to be paid by the petitioner-Company tbr the work that has been performed by the workmen. Had the petitioner-Company paid the amounts at the relevant tin-re. there would be no question of exclusion of such amounts' and the pctitioner-Company therefore cannot deny the components of "wages" merely because they are excluded from the term "wages"' as the workmen arc seeking an'ears of payments that ought to have been paid by the petitioner-Company but remained unpaid' Therefore' the components excluded by the Primary Authority-Assistant Commissioner while computingthe"wages"oftheworkmeninS'E'No10of2022isnotas envisaged under the Act. The respondent No.3-Appellate Authority had rightly appreciated the facts of the case and passed the impugned Order I dated 16.03.2024. 6

9. Furthermore, Appointment Letter follows: the Terms and Cond (Ex Al d,ated 25 07 2.,;H##,X ;.,:: wp 1]a70.2024 N8K, ] "23. You will be will h,, :r:*:ti:i!#i:.V:,:,,::,:'t,i;,'::#::,:,:i"{;::: jurisdiction':'. "" "" 5r't€1nahc€s will be uncler Hyierabqtt theworkman itamplyclearthatthough lated at paragraph 23 (extracted above) of

10. The condition s Ex.Al-Appoirrr"nra.'o is deputed to work .'ttermakes o rn c e, and he has ro "rr3;il';Hl; : :,d H::l::,[ H: in case of grievance; and therefore the workmen approaching the Authority under the provisions of the Act at Hyderabad jurisdiction is not contrary to the terms' and the Authority under the Act at Hyderabad has jurisdiction to entertain any dispute arising out of the emproyment. In that view of the matter, this Court does not see any merit in the writ petition. I 1. Accordingly, the writ petition Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ls dismissed. No costs. //TRUE COPYII SD/.A. PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 One CC to SRI MAL|PEDDI SRtN|VAS REDDyAdvocate [OpUC] One CC to SRt G. VtJAyA SARADHT Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Tv'ro CD Cop\es 4 KKS BS HIGH COURT DATED:2 glOT 12025 ORDER WP.No.13810 of 2024 i o"' ) ii cr 4!,/ 22 [us 2$25 I l /)._' r r._.. , -, i- .}J DTSMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS sK &\