The High Court · 2025

Petition under Scction 151 CPC praying that in the cir: lmsrilnces stated n the affidavit filed rn surport of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to dispense with the filing of cerlified copy of the orders of the I tespondent No.1 dt. 30-6-2006 passed rn S & E Appeal No. 2 of 2004 and pass ruch further or other orders as may be deerned fit and proper in the circumstar r es of the case and render justice. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2007(WPMP. N O: 14077 OF 2007) Petition under S€rction 151 CPC praying that in the circ rmstances stated in the affrdavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma1, be pleased to direct the respondents No. 1 & 2 Petttioners Company lrr rein to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 80,850/- with the 2nd responde.r . the labour officer immediately, direct the authority to disburse at lease 50 I of the amount so deposited to the Petrtioner-Respondent No.3 in the interest c f justice. counser ror the Petition"' ' l"T1,"s[itff?S:Xttr:,i't"..'' '' Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 : GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI MOHAMMAD YOUS; ,FUDDIN The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.25767 OF 2006 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved b-v the order dated

30.06.2006 passed by the 1st respondent in S&E Appeal No.2 oI 2004, ,'vherein tl-re 1" respondent cor-rfirmed the order datecl 26.05.2004 passed bJ' the 2"d respondent ir-r S & tr Case No 1 ol'

2. Brief facts of the case are as follou s: (a) The petitioner's company is registered under thc provtsions of the Companies Act, 1956 and it is engaged in the business of manufacturc and sale of the consumable goods rvith thc Brand name "UJALA". Respondent No 3 r"'as deplol'ed b1' thc petitioner's Company as Marketing Intelligence Assistant to canvass the sales of the products of the petitioner's Company' as per the Tour programme prepared by him one month in advancc duly submitted to his superiors. The 3'd respondent has to specifically look after Khammam Distnct in the State ol Andhra Pradesh. Later, respondent No.3 u'as not authorized and '"t'as away from the area of operation viz', Khammam District' His area of operation did not extend any'u'here except Khammam ) District. He unilaterallv ceased to u'ork fr r m 0.i. 1 1 .2OO I onsards. TlLcrcaflcr. he lras chosen to discr.r tintre frorr the sen'ices of tht, Pr:tit roncr's Compan,l' (b) While so, the petitioner's Companv rl:eived a Notice, dated 16.07.2002 ft-om respondent No.2, riterej:r it is stated that the respor-rder-rt No.3 frled a petition under Secl i ; I 5O ol the A_P. Shops and Establrshmenrs Act, vide S.E.Cas,' No.l of 2002, callrng upon tlte lreLitioners to appear on 3 I .. 7 .2OO2 at 3.OO p.m. The petiti,:ne rs entercd appearance and 1' I :cl tl-reir coLtrrter s-tatement. After hearing both the parties. - rspondent No.2 passed order. d:ltcd 26.O5.2OO4 directing the I r titir,ners ro pa). an amount oI Rs.B0,B50/ to respor-rdent No.3 r. thin a period of 3O days fi-om thr: date oI receipl- of the serid orclc. (.) Aggrieved b-y rhc ordcr, dated . i.0i;.2004, the petrtioners fiied S & tr Appeal No.2 of 2004 bc iore respondent No.l, and the same w,as dismissed by order < r tecl 30.O6.2006 cor-rfirming the order dated 26.05.2O04 pass cd bv thc 2ncr respondent. Aggrieved b-v the said order, the pet tron,:rs filed the present u.rit petition. .) Respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit strt ing as follor,r,s : (a) Respondent No.3 q,as appointed tr. the petilioner,s J Company as Marketing Intelligence Assistant on 09 09 1996' arrd he used to take the material viz UJALA Blue Liquid and Maxo C1'clothrin Mosquito Coils cartoor-rs through the authorized stockist M/s.Sri Laxmi Srinivasa Enterprises, Kothagudem' and rendered services for the grou'th and prosperity of the Compant'' Having been satisfied "vith his services, his services were confirmed w.e.f. 0 1.O4.1gg7 b1' the lsr petitioner Company and on confirmation of his services, he ri'as paid Rs 2'000/ per month towards ri'ages and bl' 'June 20O I , he \\'as paid (r Rs.5,250/. (b) While respondent No'3 had beet-r .rendering services as Marketing Intelhgence Assistant' the pelitioner- Company stopped pavment of wages from November' 2001 onwards without any reason. Having rvaited for a considerable time, the 3"1 respondent made repeatecl requests through letters dated 07.01.2002 and,30.O1'2002 respectively' but there was no response from the petitioner's Company' As such' the 3"t respondent approachecl respondent No 2 by filing a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs'43,925/- fWages of Rs'41'925/- + expenditure of Rs.14O2/-), for the claim period from 04 11'2001 to 20.06.2002, and the same was allowed on 26'05'2004 4 Aggrieved b-r' the said order, the petrtioner-s' C r rnpanl. filed al appeal beforc responcicnt No.1 z'rnd the sarne \t s dismissed on

30.06.2006 r:onfirming the order passed bv r r spondcnt No.2 Challenging the ordcr dated 30.06.2006. Ire petitioners' Companl. filed the present u,rit petition

1. On 08. 12.2006, this Court u,hiie admittinl; :he ri rit pctition granted interim stay of the operation of I tr order dated

30.06.2006 Passed bl, th" Appellate Authorit,r '11-rc,r'cafte r, the

3.,r rcspondent filed W.V M.P.No.l186 of 20Ol irnd this Court vide order datecl 21 .06.2007 disposed of W \i M.P.No.1 18(i of 2007 and W.P.M.P.No.33058 of 2006 bv obscrvi r as lollorvs "..1 deem it appropriate to make tlt= rtteirrt statl absoLuk, on conditiott oJ the petition elt dtlogement depositirtg Rs.4O,425/ - tui.thin o period oJ si ' rueelts front todoA. On suclt deposit, the resporrclett: ,rrtl.tirttlee rs pennitted to uithdranu the same uithout Ji t'trshinq any secuity. In default, the stag granted shall -. I utd uo-catecl automatically utithout further reference to tlk. ( tu1."

5. Heard Sri C.R. Sridharan, learned ienior Counsel representing Sri G.V.S.Ganesh, learned coun; ,l appearine for the petitioners, learned Government Plca::r lor Labour aplrearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 a:ocl Sri Mohammed { i I I I I i I i I I I I l I i P e ) Yousufuddin,IearnedcounselappcaringforrespondentNo.3 Perused the record

6. Learned counsel appcaring for the petilioners submits that the 3d respondent did not perform his u'ork durir-rg the period in question and that he has noL even averred or proved that he performed any n'ork during the penod ir-r question' The 3'd respondent had unrlaterally ceased to s'ork' for ""'hich petitioners' Compar-ry could not be blamed As per the policy of the petitioner's Company ' evcry field stalf/ Marking Intelligence Assistant shall submit his daily sales rcport to its area Manager and the same would be cross checked rvith the monthly expense sheet. The darly sales report is the proof of rvork done by the Assistant/ Marketing Intelligence Assistant Had the 3'd respondeut srorked during the period in question ' he ought to have produced the documents for the work done by him during the period in question, but the 3"r respondent had not produced an1' documents with regard to proof of his u''orking for the period in question. Therefore, the principle of 'no rvork - no pav'wou1d apply to the case of the 3'd respondent The petitioner's Staff/Marketing lntelligence Field 6 Companr. had paid the salary to the 3.d respon( ent for the days he had r,r'orkcrl u,ithout any deduction.

7. Learnecl coLrnsel appearing for the pr, itioners lurther sultmits [hai the findings recorded in the impr;t ned order of the ls r-espondcnt zrs rvell as in the original r.der of thc 2"d respondent are lotally perverse and baseless The appellate authorit\ errcd in coming on a conclusion ttrrr thc pctitioncr,s Companv hacl admitted that the 3.lrespondenl lad r.r.orkeC liom 01 0.+.1997 to'.2O.11.2OO1 . The 3.d respondent has nor q,orked lor the period in question and therefore, he i not entitled to claim ant, antount. B. Learned counsel appearing for the pt. itioners further submits that the petitioner Company had ner,,' tcr.minaLecl nor had takcn any disciplinary action against tlr( 3,, rcspondent since the 3.,r respondent had unilaterally stopp.I u,orking in the petitioner's company. The 2"a respondent, \ I rour considering the contentiolls advanced by the petitioner,s ( rmpany, passed the order dated 26.O5 .2OO4 and the strme r as erroneously confirmed b1' the 1", respondent vide order cii tecl 30.06.2006. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in tl'r: rvril. petitior-r by I i ! I ,// setting aside the order dated 30'06 2006 and allo'*' the writ 1 petition g. On the other hard, Iearned counsel eLppearing for the 3't respondent submits that the petilioners' Compaly miserabll failed to establish that the 3*r respondent clid not u'ork lor Lhe period from 04.1 1 -2O0 1 to 20 06 2OO2 The petitioners' Company has not initiated disciplinar-r' action against thc 3"r respondent under Rule 20 for the alleged miscorrcluct' as [he 3rd respondent worked during the rclevant pcriod Tlre pctitioner's company carnot stop payment for eighl mor-rths Thc 2nd respondent authority allowed the claim petition vide order clated 26.O5.2OO4 by following the provisions etrvisaged under Scction 2 (23\ of the Act. Further, the 1'r respondent nghtly upheld the order passed by the 2"a respondent'

10. Learned counsel appearing for the 3'd respondent further submits that the contention of the petitioner's Compan)' that the

3.drespondentunilaterallyceasedtou,orkfromo4.li.2o0l onwards is false and baseless lf the 3*l respondent had not fuifilled the terms and conditions of his employment during the claim period, the petitioner's Company ought to have initiated 8 disciplinarl irction against the 3.a respondent rnder Rules l9 ard 20 of thr A.P.Sl-rops and Establishments Rr-rl .s, l99O 1I. Learnecl coLrnsei appearing for the 3.i res rondent further submits that thr: 3"1 respondent could not sencl tis rlaih, reports as hc hacl no monc\. The contention of the pettt one r,s compar.ry th:rt thc 3,.r rcspondent did not perform his dr. tics is far lrom truth and thc samt: is liable to be rejected, as s\r :l'r, rhe principle of 'no u'ork- r1o pa\" u.ould not apply in the pr t sent case. The petitioner's com[]an\. intentionally did not respo rcl to the lctters of the 3.d respordent dated 07.01.2OO2 and 30.() L2(\02, n,herern the 3"t responrlent requested the petitioner t:l pilv his duc amount tot,arris expenses along with salanr_

12. Learnerl coutrsel appearing for the 3.d re; rondent furthe r submits that th,: 3,,t respondent has been perli rming his duties for the gro\\'rh ,tf the organ ization of the petiti, ,ners, Company rigl'rt frorn lris appointment on 09.09. 1996. g j,1gs thg J,rr respondent's performance crossed the target of j00O points, he was ari,arde<l a cash reward of Rs.5,0O0/- ir appreciation of excellcnt service rendered by him for the mc 1 th of Jal1uary, 1999 vide Letter of the petitioners' Company, d;:ed O'l .O2.lggg. ,,/,,, The 3.t respondent has discharged his duties to the satisfaction 9 of the petitioners' Compan)', as such. stoppage of his salan' for eight months is r,r,ithout ar-r-v valid l-eason. The 3'l respondent r.l'orked for the alleged period and there ivas no breach ol contract of employment with the petitioners' Companl -

13. Learned counsel appearing for the 3"i respondent further submits that the 2"d respondent, after hearing both sides, rightl-l' passed the order dated 26.05.2002t and the serme u as alsr-r confirmed by the l't respondent under the impugr-red order' Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

14. This Court, upon considering the submissions advanccd b]' the learned counsel for the respective partics, is of the considered view that, in the instant case, on 08.12'2006, this Court, while admitting the writ petition, granted an interim sta-t' of the operation of the order dated 30.06.2O06 passed bv the Appellate Authority. Subsequently, the 3'd respondent filed W.V.M.P.No.1186 of 2OO7 seeking to vacate the said interim order. This Court vide order dated 21 .06.2007 , disposed of W.V.M.P.No.1186 of 2OO7 and W-P'M.P.No33058 of 2006 making the interim stay absolute on condition of the petitioner- t0 malrirgement depositing Rs.aO,425 I within a pe - crl of sk ri ceks fronr todat-. On such deposit, the responcl i 1t-ernplovee IS pennitte rl to u irirdrar,r lhe same without furr-rishi r g an1. se cuLritl,'

15. Fronr tlre :rloresaid interim order, it is (' icle nt that the pctiuor-Ier Nlarrasement rvas dtrected to deposit l i 1l ol the salart', and the responrlen t -em p1o1,ee \ ras permitted u it hdra',r, lhe saicl amount u,ithout fun-rishing any securitv. [' rrthcrmorc, thc petitloner m:r:ra:qement failed to establish thiet he r-espondent cmplo-r'ee dirl r-rot u'ork for the period from 04. 1 I .200 I to

20.06.2002 I 6. The 2 d rcspondent, upon considerin I the matcrial available on r-cc,.)rd u'l-ri1e passing the order in f rvorrr of the 3*i respondent, obscrved tl-rat through Ex.A- 15 tl-r.. 'l.r respondcnt requested thc pr-'titioner to pay his salary and : rat RW.1 in his cross-exa min aLio n aclmitted that he sent th:: letter to thc Reeional Managcr and admitted that no action , ,,as Laken on it. F rom the above. the intention of the 3.a responrl :nt is clear Lhat though he q,orkr:d for the period from 04.lt.2OC to 20.11.200 1, his subsequent reqlrest for payment througl L Ex.A i5 dated

07.O1.2OO2 s,ars denied by the management. Th s unequivocally establishes that the 3,a respondent was willing o rvork, but the I I I I r I I i t ! ! ,/ 11 management failed to act upon his request Accordingl-v, the 2"d respondent Passed an order datecl 26'05 2004 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs'80'850/- to the 3'd resporlclent s'ithin a period of 3O days from the date of receipt of the said order. The aPPellate authoritY' upon re aPPreciation ol thc vide order dated 30'06 2006' evidence, dismissed the aPPeal thereby confirmlng the order passed by the 2"a respondeut the contention raised br

17. In the aforesaid circumstances' the petitioner-Management that' in the absence of atll' n orli an employee, the doctrine of 'no lvork' no pa-\ cannot be accepted in the present case This performe d bY should aPPlY, doctrineisattractedonlywhenanemplo.veeisoutofservicefor a certain period and claims wages for such period' In tl-re instant case, the petitioner was not out of employment and lr'as ir-r fact attending duty between 04'11'200 1 and 20'06'2002' ho'"r'e'"'er' the petitioner-Management failed to utiiize the serr''rces of tl-tt: third resPondent'

18. ln view of the above findings and the observations made br' respondent Nos.l and 2 while accepting the contention of the 3"r respondent, as weII as the order passed in the vacate stay l: t. l! t: I I t ! ! I 2 petition lilccl b-r, tl're 3.a respondent, consider:r rle strength is found in tlro ( olt lcntion of the 3.,1 respondent. 19 In thc ir'ir-c sirid circumstances, the averme r ts made b1, t,he petitioltrrr in tlrr, 1;rcscnt r.r.rit petition cannot accepted, AS there is it concllrrent linding recorded by respon [ent. Nos. 1 and

2. It is ltrr-tlrt r not cd rhat half of the amount h : s alr.eaclr. been deposited lrl t ) c petitioner and u,ithdras,r L br. the 3rcl respondcnt. -fhcrefore, this Court finds no l rstification to inter-fert. t,ilh rh<r order dated 30.06.2006 pair: ed by the 1", respoudc-'r-t t . ( lor):jequentlV, the u,rit petition is c evoid of merit and is liable to lrt'<lismissed.

20. AccordinqJ,r'. t hc rvrit petition is dismissed. No order as to COSIS Miscellartcor.ts petitions pending, if any, sha I stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. PONNA KRISHNA 4SSr:;-ANT REGTSTRAR \' { ;ECTION OFFICER \ The Appellate Authority u/s. 53 of the A.P. Shopdlarfrd Estr blishments Act, 'l9BB-Cum Asst Commissioner of Labour, Khamrham. (Vr/ th records if any) The Authority appointed under section 50 of the A.P.S.E \ct, 1988-Cum-The Labour Off icer. Kolhagudem. One CC to SRI G.t/.S GANESH Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR, High Court for the State ,r Telangana. [OUT] One CC to SRI l\4OHAtt4lVAD YOUSUFUDDIN, Advocate . [OPUC] Two CD Copies. To, 1 2 3 4 5 6 BSK W, kffit-imaw*rynrffid HIGH COURT DATED:2411112025 ...-... ;L, .t _..\. r:. i1 , t:ti zflt \. ORDER WP.No.25767 of 2006 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q 't>