M/s Kshitij Infraventures Pvt Limited v. adjudicate the said M P No. 4 of 2019 filed

Judgment

2. J. 4 The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Labour Department, at Secretariat, Hyderabad The Asst. Commissioner of Labour lll, T.Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad. Hon'ble Additional lndustrial Tribunal cum Additional Labour Court, Chandra Vihar Building, M J Road, Hyderabad represented by its Chairman DBR Mills Telugunadu Employees Union, (Regd No. B'1634) (Affiliated to TNTUC) represented by its General Secretary, at 6-6-269127, Arjun Jyothi Colony, Bansilalpet, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, interdicting the 3rd Respondent Tribunal from proceeding with trialienquiry in connection with M P No. 4 of 20'19 pending on its file and to consequently hold that the 3'd Respondent Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the said M P No. 4 of 2019 filed by the 4th Respondent herein, Award -::-rFryry7 4.2;@Et y ,/ lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the c:lrcumstances 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 IV.P.No 4 of 2C19 on the file of the 3rd Respondent, pending drsposal of W P No. of 2024 lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: DBR Mills Telugunadu Employees Union, (Regd No. U 1634) (Affiliated to TNTUC)_represented by its General Secretary, at 6-6-269127, Arjun Jyothi colony' Bansilalpet' Secunderabad ....pETrroNER/RESpoNDENT No,4 AND 1 M/s Kshitij lnfraventures Pvt Limited., represented by its Manaoino Director, Girish Malpani S/o Raj Kumar Mdlpani, aged 6bout 48 ye-ars] Oftice at PIot No 136, MLA Colony, Road Nii 12, Banjara' Hills, Hyderabad Government, Labour Department, at Secretariat, Hyderabad ...WRIT PETITIONER/RESPONDENT 2. The State of Telangana, represented by its Prircipal Secretary to 3. The Asst. Commissioner 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, tt/ J Road, Hyderabad represented by its Chairman ..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 0810712024 in W.P.No.1771412024 by dismissing the writ petition, in the interest of lustice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. N. SREEDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI CH. OMERNATHAN The Court made the following: ORDER HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAXA WRIT PETITION No. L77Lt OF 2o24 ORDER: This Writ Petition is hled to interdict the 3'd respondent Tribunal lrom proceeding with trial / enquiry in conncction with M.P. No. 4 of 2019 filed by the 4h respondent and consequently to hotd that thc Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the same.

2. Thc briel facts of thc case are: Petitioner company was formed through a Schemc of Arrangement sanctioned by this Court on O1.09.2015 in Company Petitions No. 175 to 178 of 2O15, demerging from M/s Maheshwari Megaventures Ltd. The latter camc into existence follolr,'ing the amalgamation of M/s Ashish Dcvelopers and Builders and M/s RKM Builders Pvt. Ltd. undcr orders daLed 22.03.2005 in C.P.Nos. 2O1,2O2, and 2O3 of 2OO4. M/s Deu'an Bahadur Ramgopal Mills (DBR Mills) began operations in l92O on a leased property at I-ower Tank Bund, Hyderabad, owncd by Chenai family. The property later becamc the subject of a Compromise Decree dated

20.10.1967 in O.S.No. 38 of 1967 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hydcrabad, granting ownership to Mrs. ) I -) Khorshed Shapoor Chenai. DBR Mills faced financia I difficulties and was declrrcd a sick unit under Section 15(1) ol the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985. The mill dcfaulted on rent payments, prompting an eviction suit, O.S.No. 69 o1 2003, filed by Mrs. Chenai. The suit was resolved through a L,)mpromise, allowing Mrs. Chenai to retain Acs.6.00 ancl transferring Acs.l6.00 to tcnant. Petitioner facilitated this settlement and became a party to the eviction suit as Plaintiff No. 2. Belorc the compromise, Mrs. Chenai had cxecuted an Agrccmeltt of Szrle on

03.1,2.199A, transferring Acs.22.5 to M/s Asl-rish Det,elopers and Builders lnow petitioner). Subsequently, pctitioncr entered a Development Agreement u.ith DBR Mills on 15.()3.1999 to dcvelop Acs. 16.OO, contingent on settling the moneLarv claims ol mill workers. The compromise zrgrccment becamc void u'ith thc clismissal of SLP Nos. 5163-5164 of 2022 by tlre FIon'blr: Supre me Court on La.O4.2022. Consequently, )BR Mills remained a terlant, and Mrs. Chenai retained ownership of the entire leased property. Mrs. Chenai executcd regi:;tered salt: deeds lor Acs.t->.00 in favour of petitioner under Docr,rment Nos. 1349 and 135O of 2O09 on 27.lO.2006 and 2t.10,2006. Mcanwhile, petitioner entered Scction 12(3) Agrccmcnt u,ith six /' /. _) workers' unions on 07.O3.2O17 to settle claims at Rs.7 lacs per worker, conditional on specific terms. Petitioner contends that the agreement dated 07.O3.2017 is not Section 12(3) settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, as they were not the employer of the u'orkers. Additionally, the agreement's enforceability was invalidated by objections from DBR Mills' management. Bascd on the agreement, the 4th respondent initiated proceedings before the 3'd respondent Tribunal under Scction 1 1 of thc Industrial Disputes Acl in MP No' 4 of 20 19, seeking an au'ard of Rs.49,OO,O00/ - plus l2o/o annual interest' Petitioner argues, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction, as there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties' Petitioner therefore, challcnges the enforccabitity of the settlement under Scction 33-C(1) of the Act, invoked by lhe 2"d respondent to issue a recovery certificate and initiate criminal proceedings' It is also s[ated the 3'd Respondent Tribunal, through order clated 22.O9.2023 ir-r I.A-No. 13 of 2021 in MP No' 4 ol 2079, directed petitioner to deposit Rs'49,0O,OOO/- within four months. Thc order u'as staycd by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1956 of 2024 oo 3l.O\ '2024, however, the Tribunal t \ I I I I I ; l I I I I I s I ; I I l continues to procecd with the matter, prompting the present Writ Petition. Pr:litioner asserts that settlement datecl 07.O3.2O17 docs not fall within the purview of the Act, rer.rdering the Tribunal without jurisdiction to adjudicate MP No. 5 rf 2019.

3. During the hearing, I-A.No. 2 of 2024 was taken out to substitute lhe name of the 4th respondent as 'DBR Mills Employees' Mazdoor Union (Regd. No. B- 1986) rcpleser-rted by its President, Harry Francis, S/o Nayagam, Rl t 6-3 244, Hastinapur Colony, 8tI' Cross, Sainikpuri, Secnndcr:ibad' in thc placc of 'DBR Mills Telugunadu Employees' Union (Regd. No. B 1634)(Affiliated to TNTUC) represented by its (iener:Ll Secrctary aL 6-t't-269 127, Arun Jyothi Colony, Bansilalpet, Sec-rnderabad. Thc said Apphcation was unopposed, thereforc, ,rrdered on t5.o7 .2024. 4- Rr:spondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner of Labour III, Hl,clcrabad, hled counter-affidavit asserting that thc qucstion of jr-rrisdiction raised by pctitioner has al-eady been settle d under the provisions of the Industrial Dis putes Act, particularly Se ction 12(3), vvhich govcrns the role of r:onciliation i officers and th cir dufy to report to the appropri:ite (' ove rnmen t ) regarding disputes or scttlemenls arising in the course of conciliation proceedings. lt is submitted that there is no issue of jurisdiction with respect to their actions, as the provisions of the Act are fully supportivc of the position taken, therefore, the Writ Petilion is wtthout merit. It is further stated that Writ Petition is not maintainable under the Writ of ProhiLrition, particularly because the relief sought by petitioner does not fall within the scope and grounds on which a r,"'ri t of prohibition can bc granted. This respondent brings to the attenLion of this Court the wel[- established principles for issuing a writ ol 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) availability of an adequate remedy on appcal, and (c) effectiveness of u'rit of prohibition as a remedy when no other adequalc rcmedy exists. These facLors do not support issuance of a writ of prohibition, as petitioner has failed to establish aly prima facie case for the relief sought, as such, writ Petition should be disrnissed. It is furthcr stated that petitioner's primary contention regarding the jurisdiction of thc Joint Commissioner a i I : l 6 of Labour is entircly rvithout merit. Petitioner eLrgues thzrt settlement datcd 07.O3.2017 cannot be considered .r settlement under Section 12(3) ol the Industrial Disputes Act :rnd rhat the

3.d respondent Tribunal therefore, lacks jurisdictiorL to enlorce it. This rcspondent clarifie s that Section 12(3) ol tl'r,: Industrial Disputes Act, u'hich deals with the duties of conciliation officers, clearly provides that if a settlement of a dispute is; arrived at during the course of conciliation proceedings, the conc;iliation officer must send a reporL to the appropriate Coverntnen[, along with a mcmorandum of the settlement signed by the parties involvcd in thr: dispute. Provisions of Section l2(3) are cl:ar and unambiguous. and that conciliation officer's duty tc report the settlement to the Governrnent does not depend on the nature or specific terms of the scttlement, as claimed by pcti,ionr:r. It is contended that pctitioner's objection regardinsi lack oI jurisdiction of the Joint Oommissioner of Labour Lrn,ler Secti()n 12(3) is a baseless argument that should noL bc acce[)ted by this Hon'ble Court. ln adclition, it is stated that proceedings bcforc the Tribunal, u.hich were initiated by the 4tt respc,nden t, are fully valid ancl 1egal. Petitioner, after having cxr:cuted thc Memorandum of Settlement dated 07.O3.2O17, is prccluclcrl '': I i I I t I , 3, x & t t 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 legai standing to question the orders passed in a petition filed under Section 11 of the Act, particularly after obtaining recovery certihcate under Section 33C(1) of the Act. In this context, Respondent No. 2 reiterates that petitioner's attempt to challengc 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 workman to make an Application to the appropriate Government for recovery of money due under a settlement or Award. Respondent No. 2 submits that the 4th respondent, having hled an Application under Section 33-C(1), obtained a recovery certihcate for the amounts due to 142 workmen- The Certilicate 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 emphasizcs that recovcry proceedings are consistent with the provisions of the Act and no other forum or 8 court has been approached for recovery of th: amounts mentioned in the certihcate. Respondent No. 2 also highlights the spr:cific duties of conciliation officers under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 12 (3) mandates that if a se ttlement is reached during conciliation proceedings, the officer nrust send a report to the zrppropriate Government, alonll rvith a memorandum of the settiement signed by the partier;. He refers fo l-lre settlemer-rt datcd 07.O3.2O77, which was completed under Scction 12(3) of the Act, and submits that proceedings beforc Respondent No.2 were concluded as pcr th€ statutory provisions. However, after the execution of the settlement, certain parties, including the 4th respondent, apprrached the Tribunal for enforcement of settlement. As a re sult, Respondents 1 and 2 have no further involvement in the matter, and proceedings are now in the hands of the Tribunal. In conclusion, it is stated that Writ Petition hl,:d is not maintainable, as the Tribunal has requisite jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the case.

5. The 4fi rcspondent fiIed counter conl.cnding on similar lines as that of the 2"d respondent. This responclent 9 contcnds 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 20O3 (previously O.S. No. 1201 of 1995) before the XIII Additional Chiel Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad' These proceedings resulted in a compromise decree on 03-04-2003, u,hich was upheld by a Division Bench o[ the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh on |2-O4-2OO4 in CCCA Nos' 350, 74, 329, and 131 of 20O3. Subsequent appeals in SI-P Nos 13630 and 13633 of 2005 were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 21-Oa-2OOS and 24-O8-2OO5. The trial court eventually dismissed the suit on 28-04-2O15 for non compliance with procedural requirements, including paymenL of court fees. I t is argued that petitioner's Memorandum of Settlemcnt dated O7-03-2017, executed under Section l2(3) of the Telangana Industrial Disputes Act, 1,947, remains valid and Li,-rair-rg. This settlcment, endorscd by thc 'Ioint Commissioner I, I I i i l l i I t iI I i I i l0 of Labour, H1'dcrabad, agreed upon resolving workt'r clirims for arrears, among other issues, with specific terms for payment, including Rs 7,OO,O00 in tr,r,o installments. The respondent relutes the petitioncr's claim that this settlem(:nt became unenforceable lollowing lhe clismissal of SLP Nos- 5163 5164 of 2022 on 18-04-2022, stating that the petitioner negligently failed to secure favorable orders. It is reitcratr:d that Memorandunr of Scttlcment remains cnforceable, t:mphasizing that DBR I\'lrlls' appeal dismisscd in 2004 plcdates the se[tlement br ovcr a dccade. Respondent notes thrLt petitioner voluntarily unclertook to resolve worker claims d< spitc bcing fullv aware o1' ongoing litigations. He adds that pctr rioncr failed to honor the agreed payments and neglected its obligations, including employment assurances to cligible workt:rs, thcrcbl, compelling the responder-rt Union to approach thc Tr bunal. It is highlighted that petitioner's dela1,, taclics and lack of transp:rrencv hirvc caused undue harassr--rent to Lhc Union. Despitc being awarc of dismissal of SLPs, petilioner failecl to inform thc Tribunal and instead proceederl to lrle Writ \ 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 tq comply with the settlement's terms. He further asserts that petitioner's conduct, including hling of multiple 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 [he pctitioner'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 4rh respondent-

7. Upon perusal of the pleadings and material placed on record and having heard iearned counsel for the parties, it is clear that petitioner admitted execution of settlement dated 07 .O3.2OI7 with six r.r.orkmen unions, including the 4th respondent, which was recorded before the Joint Commissioner of Labour. The said settlement forms basis of the relief claimed 1 \ 12 l\ in M.P. No. 4 of 2019. Petitioner, having participate<1 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. Fr-rrther, petitioner voluntarily entered ir-rto the said settlement, u'ith fu11 knowledge of its obligations, including specihc monetary obligation lo pay Rs. 7 lacs to each worker. This obligation was integral to the consideration under the devclopment agreement and is enforceable. Petitioner's contention that it is not an employer and hence, not liable is contrary to the terms voluntarily agrecd to and is nol tenable.

8. The Industrial Tribunal is empowered urLder Section 1 1 of the I n dustrial Dispu tes Act to adjudicar,e disputes involving settlements. The settlement dated O7.03.12O 17, being recorded during conciliation proceedings, falls within the purview of a scttlement urnder 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. Availability of an alternative rcmcdy docs not ipso facto oust the Tribunal's jurisdiction, especially u.hen the reliefs sought arise l3 from a common source ie. Set[lement dated 07.O3.2O17. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the Application filed by the 4th respondcnt union. 9 . I L is pertine nt to note that a Writ of Prohibition can I I be issued only where there is a patent lack of jurisdiction or where the proceedings arc a clear abuse of process. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that Tribunal acted without jurisdiction or that procccdings belore it are vitiatcd by any legal infirmity. Thc conduct o[ petitioner in exccuting Settlement, deriving bencfll under the development schemc and then disowning its obligations amounts to approbation and reprobation. A party seeking equitable relief under Article 226 must come with clean hands. Pcti[ioner's conducl disentitles it to any reliel under the exlraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. In light oi the above, this Court finds that the 3'd respondent Tribunal is well 'within its jurisdiction in proceeding with M.P. No. 4 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 a I i I I I l 1 i -t

1.1

11. C)onsequently, the interim order granted on O4.O7.2O24 u'hich was extended from time to tinr,_, shall stancl dissolved ar-t tomaticallr,. //TRUE COPY// i\ \ SD/-P. GOWRI SHANKAR n Feeurv REGISTRAR ', \ s.-Egt16"t't orftceR \\'--"r V +

1. One CC to SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY, Advocate-[OPtJC] i. o;; cc io sht cH. oMERNATHAN, Advocate.[oPtlc] 3. rwo ccs to GP ron LnEilui'iiisri'.;''ti;;1h'e state of relangana at 4. Two CD CoPtes Hyderabad [OUT] BM BS I I i i I I . ! I I : To, I \ I i i i I I I 1 I I I I I HIGH COURT DATED:2910412025 ..:-- ,.:, ^. . , _t' i4l +' O 06JUN il6 z o * s,,,ti cHEo * ORDER WP.No.17711 of 2024 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 6 ,^