The High Court · 2025

15 S Mallesh, S/o. S. Ramulu (Deceased As per LRs). 16.Shaila Sri Calaga (Unmarried), D/o. Late Sudam t\/allesh , Age 42 years, Occ- Unemployee, Rlo.1-1211110, VST Colony, Nacharam, Uppal Mandal, Ir,4edchal-lvatkajgiri District.

17. I\,4. A- Rahaman, S/o. Md. Majeer (Deceased As per LRs)

18.Mohd. Ateequr Rahman, S/o. Late Mohammed Abdul Rahman, Age 34 years, Occ- Unemployce, Rl/o.1 -9-293/7, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad-044. ....RESPONDENTS l.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petrtion 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 suspend the Order dt. 23.O7.2025 passed by Single Judge of this Court in W.P No. 1941 5 of 2022 pending disposal of this writ appeal in the interest of justice. Counsel for Appel ant : SRI SUNIL B.GANU, REPRESENTING Ms K.MAANASA Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Ms. M.SHALINI, GP FOR SERVICES -ll Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 to 18 : SRI B.BALAJI, REPRESENTING LEARNED COUNSEL SRI C.NAGESHWAR RAO The Court made the following JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KIIMAR SINGH THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN AND u/RIT APPEAL No. 1144 of 2025 JUDGMENT: Learned Senior Counsel Sri Sunil B.Ganu, representing learned counsel Ms. K. Maanasa, appears for the appellant. Ms. M.Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services - II, appears for respondents No.l and 2. Learned counsel Sri B.Ba1aji, representing learned counsel Sri C.Nageshwar Rao, appears for the unofficial re spondents.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. 58 rvorkmen of the appellant raised an industrial dispute under Section i0(1)(d) ol the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , lor implementation ol an oral settlement entered into bv the union and the management under the guidance of the President of the Union. I.D.No.O2 of 2015 r'i,as instituted upon relerence by the Labour Department. The l - !\,OrkmCn !\'ere seeking the benefit of compassionate appointmt: nt. The u'orkmen had retired between the years 2OOB to '2012 The learned Industriai Tril; unal ll at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as, "the Tribunal") by an order dated 15.O2.2O2i declined the relief bl' holding as under: [n viclr' o[ thc above decision, in this casc all the " 17. petitiorlersi arc retired from thc scrvices from 2OO6 to 2Ol2 and now tl.Icy want to implement the settlement arrived by Managt:mcnt and Union in the year 2013 under Ex.M1- As per Ex.M I . As per Ex.M 1, the previcus scttlement dt: 16.6 20 lO u'as tcrmir-rated duc to new settlement entered by Union and the Management ot-t 8' I l.2O 13 before the conciliation of{icer u/s 12{31 r/w section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputcs Act, 1947. As per the admission of WW1 and WW2. thc terms and conditicns entered by the Union with the Management is binding on all the employees. Whereas the petitioners retired from the services on differenr datcs from 20O6 onwards to 2012. on the other hand. the respondent clearly established that there was a settlemcnt between union and Management before the conciliation officcr under Ex.IVII in the piace of old settlemcnt and ncw settlement was canle into effect on 8. 1 1 .20 13. If that is so, the terms and conditions mentioned in settlement in the year 2013 is not binding on the petitioners ar]d this court have no jurisdiction directing the malagemcnt to apply the same with retrospective affect. On the other hand, as per section 2(p) any other settlement must bc ir.r ri riting and it should be duly signed by both I ) parties. Therefore, the oral settlement raised before the late Sri P. Janardhan Reddy ex-union President of the Respondent Compaly/Minister have no force in the eye of law. Therefore, there is no anyjustification to the petitioners to demand the respondent company to apply the terms and conditions mentioned in 2013 settlement retrospectively to the employees who are retired in the year 2O06 to 2012. i8. On the other hand, this court found latches on part of the petitioners that alleged to be legal Representatives of deceased employee's straight way added as parties to the reference without adding the names of deceased employee and his occupational status. Apart from above, the pctitioners are all retired from the services long back ar-rd accepted the retirement benehts without any protest till raising the dispute before the Labour Commissioner r.ide their representation dt: 3L.12.2O14. Admittedly, the dcmands of group of retired employees were not suppcrted by Union before the Joint Commissioner.

19. Apart from above, except WWI and WW2, other petitioners werc not given any authorization on their behalf to adjudicate the issue before this Court. On the other hand, once the employee retired from the services after attaining superannuation it automaticaliy ends the relationship of employee and employer other than in a case of removal, retrenchment, lay off closure etc. then only the Industrial Disputes Act, 7947 is applicable. Here the petitioners retired long back and received the payments wilhout any protest. Therefore, the management thinks that there is no urny dispute in between them. Subsequently, entered with the new settlement before the Labour Commissioner with the Union. Therefore, the dispute raised '-- + by the present petitioners can't be treated as [ndustrial Dispute arLd it is only an individual dispute.

20. In vicrv of thc discussions of this court, this court have no power to go bcyond the reference and no power to direct the respondent to enter into a settlement with the retircd employees. On thc other halrd, this court have no power to implcment the 2O l3 settlement retrospectively to the petitioners who are alleged to be retired long back. Thcrefore, thc petitioncrs not entitled any benefrts as clarmcd b1, thcm. Accordingly, this issue is answered iir favour of the responder'r t against the petitioncrs.

21. Issue No.2: In vicw' of the discussions in issue No.1, the petltioncrs not cntitled an1' rclief as prayed by them. Hence, tire claim pctition of petitioners is hereby dismrssed due to lack of medts- In the result, petition is dismissed u'ithout cost.

22. Accordrngly, this refercnce is answered."

4. During the pendenc-\. of the industrial dispute reference, eight of the workmen had passed away without being substituted by the legal heirs. The surviving workmen, aggrieved by the award dated 15.02.2021 irt I.D.No.02 of 20 i5, preferred a writ petition, being W.P.No.34921 of 2021, r.r'hich is pending. The dependants of the remaining deceased vr,orkmen in the said industrial - r dispute (hereinafter referred to as, "the writ petitioners"), chose to Prefer independent writ petition 1.e., W.P.No.194 l5 of 2022, which is the impugned proceedings, for a direc'tion to respondent No.2 therein, who is the appellant herein, to consider their request for compassionate appointment. The learned writ court, after considering the stand of the pa-rties, directed the appellant to consider the grievance of the petitioners therein as per represcntation dated 15.lO.2Ol2 seeking compassionate appointment without any delay. The appellant, being aggrieved, has preferred this appeal.

5. l-carrncd Scnior Counsel for the appellant submits that in the lirst place, the appellant is neither a State nor instrumentality u'here the scheme of compassionate appointment applies. Even otherwise, the settlement r,,,hich q'as in voguc till 2010 had been replaced by another settlcment ol 20 13, rvhich was sought to be applied retrospective l-y at the instance of the workmen in the industrial dispute relerence. The learned Tribunal declined the relief. Nonc of writ petitioners were impleaded as the .-- () legal heirs of the workmen u'ho died during the pendency of the rt-'ference. Learned Scnior Counsel submits that none of l.hese n,orkmen had died in harness. All of them had retired by 2Ol2 and died during the pr:ndency of the reference. The learned writ court failed to appreciate that the appellant is not a State or an instrumentality where the scheme of compassionate appointment exists. There was no settlernent at the relevant point of time which could enable the u-orkmen to stakc a claim for appointment of their dependents on their death or retirement. The writ petitioners zrpproached the learned u'rit court straightaway after ten vears of the alleged representation. Such a claim was also belated and stale. There '"t'as no legal entitlement on the part of the writ petitioners to seek a direction or mandamus upon the appellant. Despite a1l these shortcomings, the learned in'rit court issued a direction, though innocuous in nature, but having implications rvhich cotrld not be implemented b.r' the appeliant. He relies upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.Jacob v, Director of Geology and Miningt (paragraphs ' r:oot) to scc r ts 7 8 to 14), Government of India v. P.Venkatesh2 (paragraph 8) and also a recent decision in Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika v. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Uniona (paragraph 8). Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that therefore the impugned order may be set aside.

6. Learned counsel lor the '"r'rit petitioners has opposed the prayer and submits that the impugned directions are only for consideration of the grie.zances of the writ petitioners for compassionate appointment. Therefore, there is no infirmity' in the order of the learned writ court. He also submits that since the representation of the writ petitioners had remained pending for ten years, they straightaway approached the learned writ court. He does not dispute that the writ petitioners were never impleaded as legal heirs before the learned Tribunal in the industrial dispute reference. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners has also not been able to show any right arising out of a settlement or legal right or contractual right to seek ' (:o tg) '(:ouz) t5 scc 6ll IO SCC I7: --- E compassionate appointment based on lt'hich a direction could be issued by the learned r'r'rit court. Learned counsel lor the writ petitioners has also not been able to satisfy as to whether the appellant falls in the category of a State or its instrumentality against rri'hom the vvrit petition was maintainable. 7 . We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the relevant material and facts pleaded. The attendant facts referred to iu the foregoing paragraphs make it abundantl-v clear that the writ petition was not maintainable against the appellant, as it is neither the State or its instrumcntality nor performing any functions of public nature as such. That is why all the workmen approached t he learned Tribunal on reference of an industrial dispute which was declined by the learned Tribunal. The writ petitioners have failed to establish any legal or contractual right or any right arising out of a settlement between the employer and the workmen which could clothe them vr.ith a legitimate claim for being considered for compassionate appoin tment. () The alleged representation rlras made in ti;,e year 2072 before the management ol the appellant. The writ petition was liled in the year 2022 after ten years of delay. In this regard, the pronouncements of the Apex Court which had been relied upon b1. thc Iearned Senior Counsel for the appellant squarely appl-v to the lacts of the case. It would be appropriate to extract the opinion ol the Apex Court in the case of C.Jacob (supra) Itl paragraphs 11 and 13 hereunder: '11. When a direction is issued by a court/tribunal to consider or cleal u,ith the represcntation, usually the directee (person directed) examines the matter on merits, being under the impression that failure to do so may amount to disobedience. When an order is passed considering and rejecting the claim or rcpresentation, in compliance r,l ith direction ol- the court or tribunal, such an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of "acknowledgcment of a jural relationship" to givc rise to a frcsh cause of action.

13. Where an emplo-r,ec unauthorisedly absents himself and suddenly appears after 20 years and demands that he shor-rld be taken back and approaches the court, thc de partment naturally will not or may not have a ny record relating to the employee at that distance ol timc. In such cases, when l0 the employer fails to produce the records of the enquiry and the order of dismissal/ removal, court carlnot dra$' an adverse inference against the emplol-cr for not producing records, nor direct reinstatemenl $'ith back wages for 20 years, ignoring the cessation o[ servicc or the lucrative alternative employment of the cmplo5,ee. Misplaced sympathy in such matters u,ill rrncourage indiscipline, lead to unjust enrichment of the cmployec at lault and result in drain of public exchcqucr. Many a tinrr: there is also no application of mincl :rs to thc cxtent of hnancial burden, as a rcsult ol;r routinc order lor back wages." lt r.vould also be appropriate to extract thc opirrion o[ thc Apcx Court in the case of P.Venkatesh (supra) paragraph B hereunder: "8. This "dispose of the reprcsentation" lnantra ls increasingly permeating the judicial process in thc High Courts and the Tribunals. Such orders mav nrake lor a quick or easy disposal of cases in ovcrl;urdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do no serlicc to thc cause ofjustice. The litigant is back again beforc tl.rc court, as this case shows, having incurred attcndant costs an(l suffered delays of the legal process. This rvould hirre becn obviated by calling for a counter in the first instancc. thereby resulting in hna-1ity to the disputc. By thc timc, the High Court issued its direction on 9-8-20 l6 [P. Vertkate:;h v. Central Administratiue TibunaL 20 I 6 SCC n Online Mad 2086U] , nearlv tu'cntv one years had el:rpsed since the date of the death ol the emplo-vee "

8. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order of the iearned writ court in W.P.No. 194 15 of 2022, dated

23.O7.2025, cannot be sustained. It is therefore set aside' 9 The writ appeal is accordingly' allou-ed' There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous application s pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// D K.SRINIVASA RAO OINT REGISTRAR S CTION OFFICER

1. The Special Chief Secretary to Government, Labour Emiployment Training and Factories (Labour- ll) Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. The Presiding Officer, lndustrial Tribunal - ll, Tanguturi Anajajah Karmika Samkshema Bhavan, RTC Cross Road, Hyderabad.

3. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES- ll, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Ms. K.MAANASA, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI C.NAGESHWAR RAO, Advocate (OPUC) 6. Two CD Copies To SA LS D/ ::=::r::-_ : S i^1.r^-'\.- '' rjtl:" 1k (; :) 'J 3 0 0[I ?lui '?t t i! i, r':,1I <.: HIGH COURT DATED:1511012025 JUDGMENT WA.No.1144 oI 2025 ALLOWING THE W.A WITHOUT COSTS. a J