The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation of the order dated 06..1 1.2023 of the Learned Single Judge passed in w.p.33578 ot 2o1o pending disposar of the above writ appear. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under 148 of CPC & under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statecl in ttie affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleaserJ to extend the common stay orders Dt. 22.01 ..2025 passed by this Hon'ble High Court in W.A.1159 ot 2023 and in W.A.1156 ol 2O23 pending admission and disposal of the present Writ Appeals on rnerits in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI PRABHAKAR SRIPADA, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI VALLURI MOHAN SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI T.VENKAT RAJU, GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI T.SRIKANTH REDDY, REP. FOR M/s. K.HEMALATHA WRIT APPEAL NO: 1156 OF 2023 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order daled O611112023 passed in W.P.No.4329 oI 2011 on the file of the High Court. Between: POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, Rep. by its Manager, (Human Resources) MCH Complex, R.P.Road, Secunderabad. Present address. POWER grid corporation of lndia ltd. Southern Region Transmission System-1 , 6-6-8132 and 395 E, Kavadiguda Main Road, Secunderabad - 500 080. ...APPELLANT AND

1. The lndustrial Tribunal-ll, Rep. by its Chairman, Hyderabad. 2. The NTPC Ltd 400 KV Hyderabad, Sub-Station Karmika Sangham, Rep. by its Secretary, H.No.4-3-621, Raghunadhabagh, Sultanbazar, Hyderabad. Present address. The NTPC Ltd 400 KV Hyderabad Sub-Station Karmika Sangham, Rep. by its Secretary, 1-7'1, Ghanapur Village Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

3. The Management of NTPC Ltd, 400 KV Sub-Station, Rep. by its General Manager Ghanapuram Village, Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy Dist... Present Address NTPC Ltd. CFFV + JR2 Old Praga Tools Premises, Kavadiguda Road, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad, Telangana 500080. ...RESPONDENTS Y lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, thg High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 2S-11-2010 in I.A. No. 43 of 2010 in lD No. 19 of 1992 passed by the Hon'ble lndustrial Tribunal-ll at Hyderabad pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal. lA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 suspend the operation of the order dated 06.'1 1.2023 of the Learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.4329 of 2011 on the file of this Hon'ble High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under 148 of CPC & 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 extend the common stay orders Dt. 22.01.2025 passed by this Hon'ble High Court in W.A.1159 of 2023 and in W.A.1156 of 2023 pending admission and disposal of the present Writ Appeals on merits in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI PRABHAKAR SRIPADA, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI VALLURI MOHAN SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI T.VENKAT RAJU, cP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI T.SRIKANTH REDDY, REP. FOR M/s. K.HEMALATHA The Gourt delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAI Nos.1159 & 1156 of 2023 COMMON JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief .Iustice :)ujoy Paul)'. Sri Prabhakar Sripada, learned Senior Counsel represents Sri V. Mohan Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri T. Venkat Raju, learned Government Pleader for Labour Department, for respondent No.l and Sri T. Srikanth Reddy, learneC counsel represents Ms. K. HemalathrL, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2 Since both the matters are arising out of industrial dispute referred to the Industria-l Tribunai, F{yderabad (hereinafter referred to as, "the Tribunal"), on th e joint r:equest of learned couns,el lbr the parties, these matters \4'ere an alogously

3. These intra-court appeals assail the impugned common order dated 06.17.2023 passed in W.P.Nos.33578 of l2O1O and 4329 of 2Ol1 2 \ 4 The facts in W.A.No.1159 of 2O23 are referred for the purpose of disposal of these appea-ls.

5. There is chequered history of this litigation. The parties have fought a long drawn battle in the corridors of the Court. The industrial dispute was initiaily referred by the then Government and registered as I.D.No. 19 of 1992 before the Tribunal for deciding the point whether the marragement of N.T.P.C. 4OO, K.V. Hyderabad Sub-station, Ghanapuram, Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy District, was justihed in terrninating the services of nine workmen. The Tribunal passed its first Award on 23.O9.1993. This Award became subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.32 19 of 1994. A learned Single Judge, by order dated 2l .OI .2OO4 , dismissed the said writ petition. Dissatisfied with the said order, the appellant/ employer Iiled W.A.No.448 of 2OO4 which was allowed on 10.10.2006 by setting aside the award dated 23.O9.1993 as well as the order of learned Single Judge dated 21.01.2OO4. Th,e matter was remitted to the Tribunal "for fresh consideration and disposal on meits". The said order of Division Bench ',r,,as assailed before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civi! No.1643 of 2007. The Supreme Court passed the following order: t t Y 3 "We have learned the learned counsel for t he parties Tl-rese special leave petitions are direcr_ed against the judgment and order dated 10. 10.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra pradesh at Hyderabail whereby the matter has been remitted to thc Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad for fresh consideration and disposal on merits. ln the peculiar facts and circumstances of ttris case, we cleem it appropriate to request the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad to dispose of the rnatter as expeditiously as possibie, in aly event, within a period of six monthsr from the date of communication of r,his ordcr. 'lLre petitioners would be at liberty to hle lresh application(s) under Sectiorr lZ'B of the Industrjal Disputes /\cL, 7947, which would be decided by tJre Tribunal within tu,o months from the date of its filing. Th e special leave petitions are disposed ol u,i :h the aforementioned observation and direction."

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/emplo),er submits that before the Tribunal, the principal stand of the employer rvas that the industrial <lispute was referred by the State Govr:rnment . whereas "appropriate Government" is the Central Government. Learned Single Judge has recorded alleged concession of iearned counsel for the appellant/employer that the appellant/employer did not press the point relating to ..appropriate Government,,. It is argued that no concession of Advocate can ct-eate a jurisdiction and this question of law needs to be decided. t_ n 4 ( 7 . In addition, it is submitted that since beginning, the stand of the appellant/employer before the Tribunal was that the nine terminated workmen for whom industrial dispute was referred for adjudication were not appointed, engaged and employed by the appellant/employer. They were employees of the Contractors. For this purpose, a sizable number of documents were filed which were supported by the management witnesses while entering the witness box. The Tribunal brushed aside those documents and their evidence by a bald hnding that the management has frled number of documents to confuse the Tribunal.

8. The appellant/employer when raised aforesaid points before the learned Single Judge in the present matter, following findings were given: " 12. All the issues raised in the present Writ Petition have already been answered in the earlier round of litigation and this Court concurs with the findings given by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3219 of 1994. The matter was remanded only on the issue of the authority of the State Government to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal as on that date and the Industrial Tribunal after discussing the evidence placed by the petitioner company more particularly the GazeLte notification specifically dated 31.12.1998 published under Section 27 (Al(l) of the Act and the letter of the Ministry of Labour & Employment dated O9.O3.2OO5 had held that the State Government is the competent \ \ Y : 5 .ui(li:;-Ft rt_ authority to refer the dispute to the Industriar rribunal as on thar rlate."

9. It is submitted that learned Single Judge has ba.sed his findings on the order passed in W.p.No.3 219 of 1994, which findings, by no stretch of imagination, are binding. Once the order of learned Single Judge in previous round in W.p.No.3219 of 1994 is set aside by directing fresh consideration on :merits, the earlier findirLgs paJes into insignificance. Learned Single Judge has failed to consider the merits on fresh adjudication and erroneously based on the findings given in the previous round. 10. Learned c,f,unsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 supported the impugned common order and submitted that the indurstrial dispute was referred way_back in the year 1992. 11. We have heard Iearned counsel for the parties at leneth. L2. The journe.T of this litigation shows that in the prerrious round by the first an.ard dated 23.Og.Igg3, the Tribunal decided the reference in fa,rour of the workmen which got a stamp of approval by the zr learned Single Judge of this Courr- in W.P.No.32 L9 of 1994. dated 21.01.2OO4. However, this order of Iearned Single Judge could not sustain scrutiny i, W.n.N-",++S i l I I I I 6 \ of 2004. The Supreme Court also did not disturb the findings of the Division Bench in W.A.No.448 of 2OO4 and merely directed the Tribunal to dispose of the matter as expeditiously S possible, in any event, within a period of six months. In turn, the impugned award dated 25.11.2010 was passed which became subject matter of challenge in the present writ petitions. 13 We find substantial force in the argr-rment of learned counsel for the appellant/employer that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that a1l issues raised by the present appellant/ employer are alswered in the earlier round of litigation and therefore, he concurred with those findings- In our opinion, since earlier order of learned Single Judge ln W.P.No.3219 of 1994 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for "fresh consideration on merits" , there was no justification in basing the impugned common order on the basis of frndings'given in W.P.No.32l9 of 1994. For this singular reason alone, the impugned common order of learned Single Judge in both the W.P.Nos.33578 of 2010 and 4329 of 2O11 cannot be permitted to stand \ t

14. Resultaltly, both the Writ Appeals are disposed of by setting aside the impugned common order dated 06.11.2023 passed in WP.Nos.33578 of 2OIO and 4329 of 2011. The W.P.Nos.33578 of 2OlO and 4329 of 2Ol1 are restored to their original numbers. Considering the history of litigation, we request the learned Single Judge to make endeavour to decide the matters aJiesh before ensuing summer vacation. lt is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. No costs. Interl,rcutory applications, if any pending, shall also stald closed //TRUE COPY// SD/.T. KRISHNA KUMAR REGISTRAR E\.g , I sEcrrON OFFICER To, 1 . The Chairman, lndustrial Tribunal-ll, Hyderabad' 2. The Secretary, NTPC Ltd, 400 KV Hyderabad Sub-Station Karmika Sangham' H.No.4-3-621, n"gnrnaihJ[igh, S'i[unb"2"r.,- Hyderabad Present address' iri" Sl.-r"ur)/, r.rrld Lti'.itii'r.iV nv<jeiirto sud-station Karmika sansham, i :ii :d;;;dl. Villase 6n"tk"tjt. ru('naal' MedchalMalkajsiri District' I td 400 lN Sub-Station' Ghanapuram virrage, ehaiil?i?"iii{ni".n"ddv bist Present Address NTPC Ltd. cFFV + .lR2 old pilti" i"ijr.'Ftli'iiLi fuvaoibuda Road' Kavadisuda' SeCunderabad, Telangana 500080'

3. The General Manager' Management of NTPC .

4. The Section Officer, Posting Section, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

5. The Section Officer, Writ DB Section, High Court for the State of Telangana at 6. The section officer, writ service Section, High court for the state of Hyderabad. Telangana at HYderabad.

7. One CC to SRI VALLURI MOHAN SRINIVAS' Advocate IOPUC] 8. One CC to Mis. K.HEMALATHA, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

10.Two CD CoPies BSR BS 6 ',. -i.-"': :.:-:':t:':r HIGH COURT DATED: 1110312025 COMMON JUDGMENT WA.Nos.l159 & 1156 of 2023 6t STA / c IJA 1 0i o (-) t 2 18 lJIAfl 2[25 .t OE.J rJAl gd ;o -t DISPOSING OF BOTH THE WRIT APPEALS, WITHOUT COSTS @ut* W