The High Court · 2025

theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedtostay all further proceedings as passed in S.E. No. I of 2016 (Old S'E' No' 4 of 2015) onthefileofthelstRespondentbysuspendingtheimpugnedorderdated0l-06- 2017 passed in W.P.No'167 51 of 2017, pending disposal of above writ appeal' Counsel for Appellants : SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for Respondent No.l : GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for Respondent No.2 : SRI P'LAKSHMANA RAO The Court made the following iudgment : - (l 1 'HON'BI-I i SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SH A.VILI AND HON'BI,I, SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA AIISH] iTTY W.A.No.952 of 2017 JUDGMEN-l'- A)er Hot'bh .\'ri lutiv -.1blurt,rnrl Ktnar J'lutttli) Aggrieved by the order dated 0L.06.2017 passed in \X/.P.No.167i1 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge, the present writ appeal has been filed.

2. Hearcl Sri V.Narasimha Goud, leamed :or.rnsel appearing fc r the appellants, leamed Govemment Pleader for Labour appearing for the 1" responderr and Sri P.Lalshnr::ma Rao, Ieamed counsel appearing for the 2"d respondent ) it is th: case of the appellants that the 2'd respondent appointed Branch Manager on O4.a9.2OCr9 and without info;rning thern, the 2"d respondent has abandoned the services. Hence, the appellants have terrninared his services uirle 1>roceedings dated 30.04."1I2. Aggrieved bythe l l 2 said termination, the 2"d respondent has approached the Authorityunder the Shops and Establishment Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act) by filing S.E.No.9 of 201.6 under the provisions of Section a8 (1) of the Act and ihe Rules framed thereundeq contending that the appellants have illegally terrninated him from services uide proceedings dated

30.04.2012. tMrthout appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellants, the Authority uidc order dated T 12.04.2017 allowed the S.E. in favour of the 2"d respondent and erroneously held that the 2"d respondent was terrninated without conducting any detailed enqulry and directed the appellans to deposit an amount of Rs.3,72,000/- within 30 dap from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the 2"d respondent will be entitled to interest @ 9o/o p.a. on the amount allowed from the date of order till the date of deposit. 3

4. ChallcrLging the said order dated 12.04.2017 , the appellants have approached this Court by fili"g W.P.No.167>1 of 2017. Leamed Single Judge rir:e order dated 01.06 2017 dismissed the writ petition. Herrce, the present writ lppeal

5. Leamei counsel appearing for the appellarLts had contended that the 2"d respondent is not an 'enLployee' wrthin the rneaning of Secrion 2 (8) of the Act :.nd the appellants hrve also filed enough mater-ial to demonsrrate that the ?"'L r,:spondent was having disciplinary powers and was having full control over the affairs of the company. However, th,: Authoriryhas allowed the case in favour of the 2"d responde-rt although he does not fall under the definition of an 'emplo r'ee' under Section 2 (8) of the Act.

6. Leame,l counsel appearing for the appellanrs had drawn anenton of this Court to CXause 5 of Para lCi of the appointment of the 2"d respondent, wherein it was clearly ,l 4 mentioned that the 2d respondent was having power to appoint, train, dismiss, discharge or otherwise terminate the services of the employees in the said branch and shall be competent to take disciplinary action against the employees. Therefore, the 2'd respondent is not an 'emplo;ree' within in the meaning of Section 2 (8) of the Act.

7. Leamed counsel for the appellants had drawn our attention to the ratio ,rO Ooyl,,?, Division Bench of the combined ttrgh Crurt of Andhra Pradesh n S.S.Zctfar us. Labour Coart, Hltderabatl and ttther?' wherein it was held that the emplolee who is having disciplinary power and having control over the affain of the esablishment cannot be treated as an emplolee under sub-Section (8) of Section 2 of the Act and the persons who are discharging their duties in managerial capacity are exempted emplolees under section Zl (t )(a) of the Act. Hence, the 2il respondent falls under Section ll (t) (a) of the Act and not under Section 2 (8) of 'z reet1t.y lucy aru tee 5 the Act. Tlrt:rcfore, appropriate orders be passed rr :he writ appeal by se'rrng aside the order passed bythe leame,J Single Judge.

8. Learnei counsel appearing for the 2d respond,:nt had contended trat rnhile allowing the SE, the Autho;ity has nghdy held rhat the termination is not valid and has rightly set aside rhe ;ame and rightly held thar rhe ?"d respondent $/as entitied ',tr all consequential back wages and corrtinuity of service a;rd the leamed Single Judge has also nghtly dismissecl the writ petirion filed bythe appellants. 9. Flavinq r;onsidered the rival submissions made by rhe Iearned coun: r,l on either side, this Court is of the vie,w that the Authorirr, under the Act has rightly recordecl a linding that without conducting domestic enquiry, without giving any oppoftun;ry 1o ,6" 2"d respondent and without following the due pror:r:dure, the appellants have terminate,j the services of the 2"d respondent. However, while adjudi:ating 6 the case, the Authority having found that the age of the 2"t respondent was 57 pars and only one year left over service, granted RI.3,72,OOO/- towards one )car back wages. The appointment order dated 04-09.2009 would make it clear that the 2d respondent no doubt .was empowered to appont/trin, dismiss, discharge or otherwise terminate the sewices of the other employees, however, the same was subject to consultation/approval by General Manager/Managing Dtrector/ Regional Manager, which would mean that the 2"d respondent would not act independently on his own. Therefore, the 2'd respondent is not having independent poYers of managerial duties. Therefore, the Authority has rightly granted relief to the 2"d respondent. fu on today the age of the 2d respondent might be67 years. \X/hile admittingthe writ appeal on14.07.2017, this Court permitted the 2"d respondent to withdraw l/3d of the deposited amount without fumishing security and I l , l, i l i \ 7 subsequent[ on05.07.2022, permitted him to withdn,'w 5Oolo of the amorult deposited by the appellants. Since the 2"d respondent i; aged aY:out 67 years, this Court is not rnclined to interferi: u,irh the order passed by the leamed Single Judge.

10. Accorcingly, the \X/rit Appeal fails and the srame is dismissed. Nr cosrs. Miscellrneous petitions. 'tI any, pending shall stand closed '/ ":85?i'i,H[",** \ SECTION OFFICER ,[RUE COPY" \ High Court for ttre Siate of Telangana at , Ad,""ilit?PuB? GOUD RAO, .'l?f:"$t;jilriilm;* SA HIGH COURT DATED:061011:2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.952 of :2017 DISMISSING TI{E W.A WITHOUT COSTS. D /,2 tv,/z/.25 S 1e( t\ \t{ AoEr vs$ + //-l t r1F:D :) o o +. I l I