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 grant interim stay of all further proceedings in M.P.No. 5 of 2019 on the file of the 3rd Respondent, pending disposal of writ petition. I.ANO:3 OF 2024 Between DBR Mills Employees [Vazdoor Union, (Regd No. B 1986) Represented by its President, Harry Francis S/o. Nayagam R/o 6-3-244, Hasiinaiur Colony, 8th Cross, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad. ....PETlTlONER/RIiSPONDENT No.4 AND

1. M/s Kshitij lnfraventures Pvt Limited, represented by its Managing Director, 9irish Malpani S/o Raj Kumar Malpani, aged about'48 years, effice at plot No. 136, MLA Colony, Road No..l2, Banjara Hills, Hydera6ad. .,...WRIT PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

2. The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secrelary to Government, Labour Department, at Secretariat, Hyderabad. -

3. The Asst. Cornmissioner of Labour lll, T.Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad.

4. Hon'ble Additional lndustrial Tribunal cum Additional Labour Court, Chandra Vihar Building, M J Road, Hyderabad represented by its Chairman. 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 interim order granted on 0BlOl12024 in W.p.No.17714t2O24 by dismissing the writ petition, in the interest of justice. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SATYANARAYANA RAO ADIRAJU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Gp FOR LABOUR Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: -- The Court made the following ORDER E HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION NO .1 77L4 0F 2024 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed to interdict the 3'd respondent Tribunal from proceeding with trial / enquiry in connection with M.P. No. 5 of 2019 filed by the 4e respondent and consequently to hold that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the same. The brief facts of the case are: Petitioner company

2. was formed through a Scheme of Arrangement sanctioned by this Court on 01.09.2O15 in Company Petitions No' 175 to 178 of 2015, demerging from M/s Maheshwari Megaventures Ltd' The latter came into existence following the amalgamation of M/s Ashish Developers and Builders and M/s RKM Builde rs Pvt. Ltd. under orders dated, 22.03'20O5 in C'P'Nos' 2Ol' 2O2 and 2O3 of 2OO4. M/s Dewan Bahadur Ramgopal Mills (DBR Mills) began operations in 7920 on a leased property at Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad, owned by Chenai famiiy' The property ' later became the subject of a Compromise Decree dated

20.1O.1967 in O.S.No. 38 of 1967 on the file of the Chief Judge' City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, granting ownership to Mrs' I I I 1 Khorshed Shapoor Chenai. DBR Mills faced financiat difficulties and was cleclared a sick unit under Section 1S(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985. The mill defaulted on rent payments, prompting an eviction suit, O.S.No- 69 of 2OO3, filed by Mrs. Chenai. The suit was resolved through a compromise, allowing M rs. Chenai to retain Acs.6.0O and transferring Acs.16.0O lo tenant. petitioner facilitated this settlement and became a party to the eviction suit as plaintiff No. 2. Before the compromisr,, Mrs. Chenai had executed an Agreement of Sale on

03. 12.1998, rranslerring Acs.22.5 to M/s Ashish Developers and Builders fnow petitioncr). Subsequently, petitioner entered a Development Agreement with DBR Mills on 15.03.1999 to develop Acs. 16.00, contingent on settling the monetary claims of mill workers. The compromise agreement became void with the dismissal of SLP Nos. S 163-5 164 of 2022 by the Hon,ble Supreme (rourt on 18.O4.2022. Consequently, DBR Mills remained a tenant, and Mrs. Chenai retained ownership of the entire leased property. Mrs. Chenai executed registereri sale deeds for Acs.6.OO in favour of petitioner under Document Nos. 1349 and 1350 of 2OO9 on 27.1O.2006 and, 28.10.2006. Meanwhile, pe titioner entered Section 12(3) Agreemt)nt with six 1 \ l ,) workers' unions on 07.O3.2017 to settle claims at Rs'7 lacs per worker, conditional on specific terms. Petitioner contends that the agreement dated 07.O3.2O17 is not Section 12(3) settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, as they were not the employer of the workers. Additionally, the agreement's enforceability was invalidated by objections from DBR Mills' management. Based on the agreement, the 4th respondent initiated proceedings before the 3'd respondent Tribunal under Section 1 I of the lndustrial Disputes Act in MP No' 5 of 20 19, seeking an award of Rs.49,O0,OOO/- plus I2%o annual interest' Petitioner argues, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction, as there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties' Petitioner therefore, challenges the enforceability of the settlement under Section 33-C(1) of the Act, invoked by the 2nd respondent to issue a recovery certificate and initiate criminal proceedings' It is also stated the 3'd Respondent Tribunal, through order dated 22.09.2023 in I.A.No. 13 ot 2O2l in MP No' 5 of 2019, directed petitioner to deposit Rs.49,OO.,O00/- within four months. The order was stayed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1956 of 2024 ot 3l -O1.2O24, however, the Tribunal I I I 4 continues 1,o proceed with the matter, prompting the present Writ Petition. Petitioner asserts that settlement dated 07 .O3.2OI7 does not fal1 within the purview of the Act, rendering the Tribunal q,ithout jurisdiction to adjudicate MP No. 5 of 2O19.

3. During the hearing, I.A.No. 2 of 2024 was taken out to substitute the name of the 4ft r:espondent as 'DBR Mills Employees' Mazdoor Union (Regd. No. 8,1986) represented by its President, Harry Francis, S/o Nayagam , R/o 6-3-244, Hastinapur Colony, 8e Cross, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad'in the place of 'DBR Milts Telugunadu Employees' Union (Regd. No. B- 1634)(Affiliated to TNTUC) represented by its General Secretary at 6-6-269 127, Arun Jyothi Colony, Bansilalpet, Secunderabad. The said Application was unopposed, therefore, ordered on

15.o7.2024

4. Respondent No. 2 Assistant Commissioner of Labour-III, Hyderabad, fi1ed counter-afhdavit asserting that the question of jurisdiction raised by petitioner has already been settled under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, particularly Section i2(3), which governs the role of conciliation offibers and their duty to report to the appropriate Government I I I 5 regarding disputes or settlements arising in the course of conciliation proceedings. It is submitted that there is no issue of jurisdiction with respect to their actions, as the provisions of the Act are fully supportive of the position taken, therefore, the Writ Petition is without merit. It is further stated that Writ Petition is not maintainable under the Writ of Prohibition, particularly because the relief sought by petitioner does not fall within the scope and grounds on which a writ of prohibition can be granted. This respondent brings to the attention of this Court the well- established principles for issuing a writ of prohibition. He urges to take into consideration several critical factors, such as: (a) severit5r of harm that would be caused by the excess of power if the writ is not issued, (b) avaitability of an adequate remedy on appeal, and (c) effectiveness of writ of prohibition as a remedy when no other adequate remedy exists. These factors do not support issuance of a writ of prohibition, as petitioner has failed to establish any prima facie case for the relief sought, as such, Writ Petition should be dismissed. It is further stated that petitioner's primary contention regarding the jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner It\ i I 6 of Labour is entirely without merit. Petitioner argues that settlement dated 07.O3.201 7 cannot be considered a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the

3.d respondent Tribunal therefore, lacks jurisdiction to enforce it. This respondent clarifies that Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which deals with the duties of conciliation officers, ciearly provides that if a settlement of a dispute is arrived at during the course of conciliation proceedings, the conciliation officer must send a report to the appropriate Government, along with a memorandum of the settlement signed by the parties involved in the dispute. Provisions of Section 12(3) are clear and unambiguous, and that conciliation officer's duty to report the settlement to the Government does not depend on the nature or specihc terms of the settlemcnt, as claimed by petitioner. It is contended that petitioner's objection regarding lack of jgrisdiction of the Joint Commissioner of Labour under Section 12(3) is a baseless argument that should not be accepred by this Honble Court. In addition, it is stated that proceedings before the Tribunal, which were initiated by the 4tt respondent, are fully valid ancl legal. Petitioner, after having exr:cuted the Memorandum of Settlement dated 07.03.2017, is precluded 1 .-1 from challenging the proceedings initiated by the respondents under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act' The respondent further clarifies that petitioner has no iegal standing to question the orders passed in a petition filed under Section 11 of the Act, particularly after obtaining recovery certificate under Section 33C(1) of the Act. In this context, Respondent No' 2 reiterates that petitioner's attempt to challenge the jurisdiction of the 3'd respondent Tribunal is misplaced and legally-untenable. Furthermore, Respondent No' 2 explains that Section 33-C(1) permits a workmar to make an Application to the appropriate Government for recovery of money due under a settlement or Award. Respondent No' 2 submits that the 4fr respondent, having Iiled an Application under Section 33-C(1)' obtained a recovery certificate for the amounts due to 142 workmen. The Certificate was issued by the appropriate authority, and it is now incumbent upon the Court to proceed with the recovery of the amounts in the same manner as arrears of land revenue. He emphasizes that recovery proceedings are consistent with the provisions of the Act and no other forum or I \ - I I i court has been approached for recovery of the amounts mentioned in the certificate. Respondent No. 2 also highlights the specific duties of conciliation ofhcers under Sectio n 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 12(3) mandates that if a sel.tlement is reached during conciliation proceedings, the officer must send a report to the appropriate Government, along with a memorandum of the settlement signed by the parties. He refers to the settlernent dated OZ.O3.2OIZ, which was completed under Section 12(3) of the Act, and submits that proceedings before Respondent No. 2 were concluded as per the statutory provisions. However, after the execution of the settlement, certain parties, including the 4d respondent, approached the Tribunal frlr enforcement of settlement. As a result, Respondents I and 2 have no further involvement in lhe matter, and procee<lings are now in the hands of the Tribunal. In conclusion, it is stated that Writ petition filed is not maintainable, as the Tribunal has requisite jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the case. 5. The 4ft respondent ftled countcr contending on ,siiilar lines as that of the 2"d respondent. This respondent I 9 contends that petitioner has not appropriately named respondent Union in the proceedings, instead retained respondent No.4 from Writ Petition' This' according to the respondent, undermines the legitimacy of Petition' He emphasized that petitioner acquired rights over DBR Mills and its land and their assertions were previously submitted verbatim before the Tribunal and references proceedings in o'S' No' 69 of 2OO3 (previously O.S. No' 12Ol of 1995) before the XIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court' Hyderabad' These proceedings resulted in a compromise decree on 03-O4-2OO3' which was upheld by a Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh on \2-O4-2OO4 in CCCA Nos' 350' 74' 329, arrd, 131 of 2O03. Subsequent appeals in SLP Nos' 13630 and 13633 of 2005 were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 21-08-2005 and 24-O8-2OO5 ' The trial court eventually dismissed the suit on 2a'O4-2O15 for non- compliance with procedural requirements' including payment of court fees. It is argued that petitioner's Mcrirorandum of Settlement dated O7-03 2017, executed under Section 12(3) of the Telangana Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ' remains valid and bindirlg. This settlement, endorsed by the Joint Commissioner -r I l0 of Labour, Hyderabad, agreed upon resolving worker claims for arrears, among other issues, with specific terms for payment, including Rs. 7,00,OO0 in two installments. The respondent refutes the petitioner's claim that this settlement became unenforceable following the dismissal of SLp Nos. 5163_5164 of 2O22 on 1t3-O4-2O22, stating that the petitioner negligently failed to secure favorable orders. It is reiterated that Memorandum of Settlement remains enforceable, emphasizing that DBR Mills' appeal dismissed in 2OO4 predates the settlement by over a decade. Respondent notes that petitioner voiuntarily undertook to resolve worker claims despite being fully aware of ongoing titigations. He adds that petitioner failed to honor the agreed paJnnents and neglected its obligations, including employment assurances to eligible workers, thereby I compelling the respondent Union to approach the Tribunal. It is highlighted that petitioner,s delay tactics and lack of triutsparency have caused undue harassrnent to the Union. Despite being aware of dismissal of SLps, petitioner failed to inform the Tribunal and instead proceeded to file Writ I \ Petition No. 2011 of 2024, securing interim stay orders without notifying the Tribunal. This respondent underscores petitioner's failure to substantiate its claims with credible efforts to comply with the settlement's terms. He further asserts that petitioner's conduct' includinglilingofmultiplewritpetitionsseekingidenticalrelief, is a misuse of judicial process. The respondent concludes by requesting dismissal of this Writ Petition citing prolonged suffering endured by the Union and its members due to the petitioner's actions. Heard Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel for 6. petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Respondents I and 2 and Sri Ch. Omarnathan, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. Upon perusal of the pleadings and material placed 7 . on record and having heard learned counsel for the parties' it is clear that petitioner admitted execution of settlement dated 07.O3.2O17 witJl six workmen unions, including the 4th respondent, which was recorded before the Joint Commissioner of Labour. The said settlement forms basis of the relief claimed )--- , I I i I -i I I t2 in M.P. No. 5 of 2019. Fetitioner, having participated in the said settlement proceedings and obtained benefits under the Development Agreement dated 15.03.1999 with DBR Mills, cannot now be permitted to resile from the terms of the said settlement. Further, petitioner voluntarily entered into the said settlement, with lull knowledge of its obligations, including specific monetary obligation to pay Rs. 7 lacs to each worker. This obligation was integral to the consideration under the development agreement and is enforceable. petitioner,s contention that it is not an employer and hence, not liable is contrary to lhe terms voluntarily agreed to and is not tenable.

8. The Industrial Tribunal is empowered under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act to adjudicate disputes involving settlements. The settlement dated 07.O3.2017, being recorded during conciliation proceedings, falls within the purview of a settlement under Sections 2(p) and l2(3) of the Act. Pendency of proceedings under Section 33-C(1) before the Magistrate does not bar jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal. Availabilitv of an alternative remedy does not ipso focto oust the Tribunal's jurisdiction, especially when the reliefs sought arise i from a common source ie . Settlement dated 07'03'2017' The Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the Application filed by the 4th respondent union \ g. It is pertinent to note that a Writ of Prohibition can be issued only where there is a patent lack of jurisdiction or where the proceedings are a clear abuse of process' Petitioner failed to demonstrate that Tribunal acted without jurisdiction or that proceedings before it are vitiated by any legai infirmity' The conduct of petitioner in executing Settlement, deriving benefit under the development scheme and then disowning its obligations amounts to approbation and reprobation' A party seeking equitable relief under Article 226 must come with clean hands. Petitioner's conduct disentitles it to any relief under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court' In light of the above, this Court finds that the 3'd respondent Tribunal is well within its jurisdiction in proceeding with M'P' No' 5 of 2019' and no ground is made out to interdict such proceedings' The Writ Petition is therefore liable to be dismissed' The Writ Petition is accordingiy, dismissed. No

10. CoStS. l.+ (

11. Oonsequently, the interim order granted on O8.O7.2O24 rvhich was extended from time to time shall stand dissolved aulomatically. //TRUE COPY// SD/.V.KAVITHA TY REGISTRAR DE[' I ON OFFICER of Telangana at To'" 1. T*o CCs to GP FOR LABOUR, High Court for the St Hvderabad IOUTI

2. d;"bC 6 dnt-snrvRunReYANA RAo ADIRAJU' Advocate [oPUC] 3. Two CD CoPies SA/BSK W I I I , --: J o t EH r.\ I4: o 2 0 Jut'l o S 11 EO (. ( v z -b )) HIGH COUR-T DATED:2910412025 ORDER WP.No.1771,4 of 2024 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. @ rn1 t1 f r.,L) I