High Court · 2025

no.Btf tJl200l2O14, reir. by its President SRI R.Eshwar Prasad, village and mandal Patancheru, Medak district. Telangana State

3. The Joint Commissioner Of Labour, Rangareddy zone, Hyderabad, ...RESP.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly Writ of PROHIBITION' restraining the respondent no,1 Labour Court from entertaining and adludicating the petition filed under section 2A-(2) of the lndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide lD No.g of 2017. lA NO: 1 OF 2017 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 it is prayed that this hon'ble court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in lD no.9 of 2017 pending on the file 1st respondent labour court, pending disposal of the writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2018 Between: The General Secretary, Roopa lndustries Limited, Workers Union reg no.BftUl2OOl2)14, rep. by its President SRI R .Eshwa Prasad, village and mandal Patancheru, ltrledak district. ...PETITIONER/2"d RESPONDENT AND '1 . The General l\zlanager (HR), Roopa lndustries Ltc. Village and lrlandal 2. The Chairman and Managing Director, Roopa lndLrstries Ltd, A3and 44, Patancheru, Sangareddy District, (T.S) Phase lV lDA, Patancheru, Sangareddy Distric! TS

3. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court ll, 4th floor chandravrhar complex ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 & 2

4. The Joint Commissioner Of Labour, Rangareddy zone Hyderabad, Nampally, Hyderabad. Telangana State ...RESPOND =NTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the c ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cotrrl may be pleased to vacate the interim order passed in l.A.No.1 of 2018 in W P. No. 451 75 of 2017 dated 01-02-2018. Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. MOGILI ANAVENI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l & 3: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: - The Court made the following: ORDER xw, L wP-45175_2Ol) NBK, J THE HON'BLE SRIJU STICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.4 5175 of2017 ORDER: Respondent No.2-Workers Union filed a petition under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Acr, 1947 (for short 'Act') before respondent No.1 and the same was numbered as l.D.No.9 0l 2017. The workers Union has alleged in the petition that the petitioners-Roopa Industries (for short, "the Management") has orally terminated the seruices of sixly (60) contract labourers w.e.f . 23.12.2014 without issuing any prior notice and reasonable opporlunity of hearing to them. It is stated that on the advice of the Concitiation Olficer, the Workers Union had filed the petition under Section 2(A) of the Act, praying the respondent No.1-Labour Court to direct the petitioner-Management to reinstate the 60 workmen with continuity of their service and back wages by setting aside the oral termination orders dated 23.12.2024. It is stated that though the petition was filed before the Labour court by the 60 workmen, their particulars/details were not mentioned in the said petition; and in spite of the same, the Labour court numbered the petition as I.D.No.9 of 2017,and proceeded to issue notices to the petitioner- Management, and also posted the case for trial.

2.HeardMs.MogiliAnaveni,learnedcounselforthepetitioners;and leamed Govemment Pleader for Labour- Perused the record'

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-Management contends that without there being any satisfactory explanation from respondent No'2- Workers Union, the Labour Court (respondent No.1) numbered the case as I.D.No.9 of 2017, and therefore the entertaining and numbering of the petition is corftia4, to the provisions of Section 2,A (2) of the Act' Leamed counsel refers to Section 2A(2) of the Act, which reads as under: \ 2 wp-45715 _2017 NB(, J "Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10, any such workman as is specified in sub-section (1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adiudication of the disPute referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the apptication to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for c(,nciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate uPon the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in acccrdance with the provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as they apply in relation to an industria dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends thrt initially the said dispute was raised before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour', Sanga Reddy, and later it was transferred to respondent No.3-. oint Clornmissioner of Labour who in tum conducted several meetings/co.rciliations with the parties. It is submitted that there is no privity of cc ntract between the petitioners-Management and the 60 workmen as thel were engaged on contract basis by a contractor by name Mr.J. Srinivas as per the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. It is further submitted that as the workmen, being contract labourers, cannot take shel .er under provisions of the Act. That thereafter, respondent No.3 advised the workmen to approach respondent No. I by filing individual applica.ions under Section 2A(2) of the u\ct. However, instead of filing individual petitions, respondent No.2-workers union filed the above said petition seeking reinstatement of the workmen into service, that too without even mentioning the parliculars/details of the aggrieved workmen. The petit oners-Management therefore seeks to restrain the respondent No.l (Lrrbour Court) from adjudicating the I.D.No.9 of 2017. 3 wp 45175-2077 NBK, J

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-worker union, based on the counrer affidavit, contends that in the said petition I.D.No.9 of 2017, the petitioners herein were issued notices with a direction to file counteE but no counter has been filed. It is stated that the instant writ petition is hled only to drag on the proceedings in LD.No.9 of 2017 despite respondent No.l declared the petitioners as ex parte in the said case and the same was posted for evidence on 28.12.2017. As such, this writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

6. Considered the respective submissions and perusing the record' it is to be noted that the wolkmen ought to have filed individual petitions rather than a single petition, and furthermore there are no details/particulars of the 60 workmen who are aggrieved of the termination orders. And therefore, the respondent No. I (Labour Court) erred in numbering the petition, and the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act. In that view of the matteq the writ petition deserves to be allowed- T.Accordingly,thewritpetitionisalloweddirectingrespondentNo'1- Labour Court not to adjudicate or proceed further in I'D'No'9 of 2017 filed by respondent No.2-workers union under Section 2A(2) of the Act' No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed' That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL, on this MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE //TRUE COPY// SD/. S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTAN] REGISTRAR (ni SECTiON OFFICER

1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court ll, 4th floor chandravihar complex Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. SRI R .Estrwar Prasad. The President General Secretary, Roopa lndustries Limited, Workers Union reg no.BtTUl2O0l2014, village and mandal Patancheru, Medak district.

3. The Joint Commissioner Of Labour, Rangareddy zone, Hyderabad, Telangana State

4. one CIC to v/s. MoGlLl ANAVENI, Advocate [oPUCl 5. Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies To o PSK TKS HIGH COURT DATED:2410312025 ORDER WP.No.45175 of 2017 171:ipm o6.sr, :.\\1.- --..' ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 9