M/s Kshitij lnfraventures Pvt Limited v. '1 . The State of Telangana

.......RESPONDENTS 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 o\l07t2o24 in w.p.No.17718t2024 by dismissing the writ petition, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Gp FOR LABOUR Counsel forthe Respondent No.4 : SRI CH. OMERNATHAN The Court made the following ORDER ) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 17718 OF 2o24 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed to interdict the 3'd respondent Tribunal lrom proceeding with trial / enquiry in connection with M.P. No. 6 of 20 19 hled by the 4e respondent and consequently to hold that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the same.

2. The brief facts of the case are: Petitioner company was formed through a Scheme of Arrangement sanctioned by this Court on O1.09.2O15 in Company Petitions No. 175 to 178 of 20 15, demerging from M/s Maheshwari Megaventures Ltd. The latter came into existence foltowing the amalgamation of M/s Ashish Developers and Builders and M/s RKM Builders Pvt. Ltd. under orders d,ared 22.O3.2OO5 in C.P.Nos- 2O1, 2O2, and 2O3 of 2OO4. M/s Dewan Bahadur Ramgopal Mills (DBR Mills) began operations in l92O on a leased property at L,ower Tank Bund, Hyderabad, owned by Chenai family. The property later became the subject of a Compromise Decree dated

20.IO.1967 in O.S.No. 3a of 1967 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civit Courts, Hyderabad, granting ownership to Mrs c_:.. ). Khorshed Shapoor Chenai. DBR Mills faced f-rnancial ditficulties and was declared a sick unit under Section 15(1) of rhe Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985. The mill defaulr.ed on rent payments, prompting an eviction suit, O.S.No. 69 o1 2003, filcd by Mrs. Chenai. The suit was resolved through a c ompromise, allowing Mrs. Chenai to retain Acs.6.00 and tr-ansferring Acs.16.00 to tenant. Petitioner facilitated this settlement and became a parq/ to the eviction suit as Plaintiff No. 2. Before the compromise, Mrs. Chenai had executed an Agreement of Sale on

03.I2.1998, lransferring Acs.22.5 to M/s Ashish Developers and Builders (now petitioner). Subsequently, petitio:rer entercd a Development Agreement with DBR Mills on 15. f 3.1999 to develop Acs. 16.O0, contingent on settling the moneta ry claims of mill workers. The compromise agreement became \,.,id rvith the dismissal of SLP Nos. 5163 5164 of 2022 by the I{on'ble Supreme Court on 18.O4.2022. Consequently, DBR Mitls remained a tenant, and Mrs. Chenai retained ou'ncrship of the entire leased property. Mrs. Chenai executed registered sale deeds for Acs.6.0O in favour of petitioner under Document Nos. 1349 and 1350 of 2OO9 on 27.1O.2006 and 2t;.10.2006. Meanwhile, petitroner entered Section 12(3) Agrcement with six workers' unions ofi 07.O3.2O17 to settle claims at Rs'7 lacs per worker, conditional on specillc terms. Petitioner contends thal 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. Additionatly, the agreement's enforceability was invalidated by objections from DBR Mills' management. Based on the agreement, the 4th respondcnt initiated proceedings before the 3'd respondent Tribunal under Section I 1 of the Industrial Disputes Act in MP No. 6 of 2O 19, seeking an award of Rs.49,O0,0O0/- plus l2%o annual interest' Petitioner argues, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction, as there is no employer-employee relationship betwecn the parties. Petitioner therefore, challenges the enforceability of the settlement under Section 33-C(1) of the Act, invoked by the 2"d respondent to issue a recovery certiltcate and initiate criminal proceedings' It is also slated the 3'd Respondent Tribunal, through ordcr dated 22.O9.2023 in l.A.No. 13 of 2021 in MP No' 6 of 2019, directed petitioner to deposiI Rs'49,00,OOO/- within four months. The order was stayed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1956 of 2024 on 3l.Ol -2024, however, the Tribunal I \ 4 continues to proceed with the matter, prompting the prcsent writ Petition. Pctitioner asserts that settlement datcd 07.O3.2O17 does not fall within the purview of the Act, re rrdering the Tribunal withr>ut jurisdiction to adjudicate MP No. 6 ol 2019.

3. During the hearing, I.A.No. 2 of 2024 was taken out to substitute [he name of the 4th respondent as 'DBR Mills Employees' Mazdoor Union (Regd. No. B- 1986) rep:'esented b1' its President, Harry Francis, S/o Nayagam, Rl o 6-3-244, Hastinapur Colony, 8ft Cross, Sainikpuri, Secundentbad' in the place of 'DBR Mills Telugunadu Employees' Union (Regd. No. B 1634)(Affiliated to TNTUC) represented by its Gener:rl St:cretan, at 6-6-269 /27, Arun Jyothi Colony, Bansilalpet, Secunderabacl- The said Application was unopposed, therefore, ,;rdcred on t5.o7.2024.

4. Rt'spondent No. 2 - Assistant Commissioner of Labour-III, Hyderabad, filed counter-afhdavit asserting that the question of jurisdiction raised by petitioner has alr-eady been settled under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, particularly Section 12(3), which governs the role of c:onciliation ofltcers and thcir duty to report to the appropriate (l overnment \ \ 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 l-he 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 latl within the scope and grounds on which a writ of prohibition can be granted. This respondent brings to the attention o[ this Court the well- established principles for issuing a writ of prohibition. He urges to take into consideration several critical factors, such as: (a) severity of harm that would be caused by the excess of power if the writ is not issued, (b) availabiliry of an adequate rcmedy 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 o[ prohibition, as petitioner has failed to establish any pimo 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 ol the Joint Commissioner \ 6 of Labour is entirely without merit. Petitioner zrrgues that i settlement datcd 07.O3.2017 cannot be considered:L settlement under Section 12(3) of the lndustrial Disputes Act a nd rhat the

3.d respondent Tribunal therefore, lacks jurisdictiorr to enforce it. This respondent clarifies that Section 12(3) of th,: Industrial Disputes Act, u,hich deals with the duties of conciliation offrcers, clearly provides that if a settlement of a dispute is; arrived at during the course of conciliation proceedings, the conciliation officer must s<:nd a report to the appropriate Governrnent, 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 ttrat conciliation officer's duty tc report the settlement to the Government does not depend on the nature or specihc terms of the settlemenl, as claimed by petilioner. It is contended that petitioner's objection regardinp, letck of jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner of Labour unrler Section I2(3) is a baselcss argument that should not be accel:)ted by this Hon'ble Court. In addition, it is stated that proceed rngs before the Tribunal, u,hich were initiated by the 4n respondent, are fully valid and legal. Petitioner, after having exccuted the Memorandum of Settlement dated 07.O3.2017, is precluded I ) -7 7 from challenging the proceedings initiated by the respondents under Section 33-C(2) o[ the Industrial Disputes Act. Thc respondent lurther clarifies that petitioner has no legal 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 thc jurisdiction of the 3.d respondent Tribunal is misplaced and legally- untenable. Furthermore, Respondent No. 2 cxplains that Section 33 C(1) permits a workman to make an Application to the appropriate Government for recovery of moncy due unclcr a settlemcnt or Award. Respondent No. 2 submits that the 4Ih respondent, having hled an Application under Section 33-C(1), obtained a recovery certiltcate for the amounts due to 142 workmen. The Certificate was issued by the appropriate authority, and it is now incumbent upon the Courl to procced q,ith the recovery of the amounts in the same manner as arrears of Iand revenue. He emphasizes that recovery proceedings are consistent with the provisions of the Act and no other forum or 1 ) 8 court has bcen approached for recovery of tht: amounts mentioned in the certificate. Re'spondent No.2 also highlights the spccific duties of conciliatiort officers under Sectiorr 12 of the lndustrial Disputes Act. Section 12(3) mandates that if a scttlement is reached during conciliation proceedings, the officer nrust send a report to tht: appropriatc Government, alon;i rvith a memorandum of the settlement signed by the partier; He refers to the settlem<:nt dated 07 -O3.2017 , which was compteted under Section 1 2(3) of the Act, and submits that proceed ings before Respondent No.2 were concluded as per th( st.atutory provisions. Hou'ever, after the execution of the settlement, certain parties, including the 4h respondent, approached the Tribunal for enforcement of settlement. As a rcsult, Respondents 1 and 2 have no further involvement in the matter, and proceedings are now in the hands of the Tribunal ln 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 4h respondent filed counter con Lending on similar lines as that of the 2nd respondent. This resPondent t 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 2003 (previously O.S. No. 1201 of 1995) before the Xlll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad These proceedings resulted in a compromise decree on 03-O4-20o3' which was uphetd by a Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 12-O4-2OO4 in CCCA Nos' 350' 74' 329, and 13I of 2OO3. Subsequent appeals in SLP Nos 1363O and 13633 of 20O5 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 lor non- compliance with procedural requirements, including payment of court [ees. It is argued that petitioner's Memorandum of Settlement dated O7-O3 2017, executed under Section 12(3) of the Telangana Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ' remains valid and Uinding. This settlement, endorsed by the Joint Commissioner \ t0 of Labour, Hyderabad, agreed upon resolving worker claims for arrears, among other issues, with specific terms rbr payment, including Rs. 7,OO,OO0 in lwo installments. Tht: respondent refutes the petitioner's claim that this settlenlent became unenforceable follou.ing the dismissal of SLP Nos 5t163-5164 of 2022 on l8-O4-2O22, stating that the petitioner negligently failed to sccure favorable orders. It is reir.erated that Memorandurn of Settlement remains enforceable, emphasizing that DBR Mills' appeal dismissed in 2OO4 p,redates the settlement by over a decade- Respondent notes that petitioner voluntarily trndertook to resolve worker claims riespite being fully aware oI ongoing litigations. He adds that petitioner failed to honor thc agreed payments and neglected its obligations, including employment assurances to eligible worl':ers, thereby compelling the respondent Union to approach the T'-ibunal. It is highlighted that petitioner's dela-r' tat:tics and lack of transparency have caused undue harassment to the Union. Despitc being aware of dismissal of SLI's, petitioner failed to inform the Tribunal and instead proceedeC to Ille Writ Petition No. 2O1I of 2O24, securing interim stay orders without notirying 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, including filing of multipte writ petitions seeking identical relief, 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.

6. Heard Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Ch. Omarnathan, learned counsel for the 4th respondent.

7. Upon perusal of the pleadings and material placed on record and having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that petitioner admitted execution of settlement dated O7.O3.2O17 with six workmen unions, including the 4fr respondent, which was recorded before the Joint Commissioner of Labour. The said settlement forms basis of the relief claimed \ \ ) in M.P. No. 6 o[ 2019. Petitioner, having participated in the said settlement proceedings and obtained benehts under the Development Agreement dated l5-03.1999 with .)BR Milts, cannot now be permittecl to resile from the terms of lhe said settlement. Further, petitioner voluntarily entered irrto the said settlement, with full 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 theterms voluntarily agreed to and is not ten:rble.

8. The lndustrial Tribunal is empowered un,ler Section i I of the Inclustrial Disputes Act to adjudicat,: disputes involving settle ments. The settlement dated 07.03.2O17, being recorded during conciliation proceedings, falls rvithin the purview of a settlement under Sections 2(p) and 12(3) of the Act. Pendency of proceedings under Section 33-C(1) before the Magistrate does not bar jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal. Availability of an alternative remedy does not ipso facto oust the Tiibunal's jurisdiction, especially when the reliefs sought arise I I3 from a common source ie. Settlement dated O7.O3.2O17. The f Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the Application hled by the 4h respondent union. t \

9. 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 legal 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 Artrcle 226 must come with ciean 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 res.pondent Tribunal is well within its jurisdiction in proceeding with M.P. No. 6 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 accordingly, dismissed. No

10. costs. I 14 11 Consequently, the interim order gra :rted Oa.O7.2O24 which was extended from time to time shall stand dissolved automaticallY' SD/. P. CH. D NAGABHUSHAMBA Hpurv REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SA ,- ,*o ccs to GP FoR LABoUR' High court for the " ttvderabad lOUTl s nee.p6xSeoo*1xai3Ji'?3 a sllsili 8'xi^i 4. Two CD CoPies (n- \b te of ECTION OFFICER -Ielangana at loPUCl PUCI I \ I I I c o Cr,+ 1nE s14r 0 6 JriN zffi irjn,;C- -,. o ( C J\ I { HIGH COURT DATED:2910412025 ORDER WP.No.17718 o12024 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. \ F. I .-)t- "(' i i €