Back
2007 Supreme(AP) 52
2007 (2) ALT 386 (D.B.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
G.S. SINGHVI, C.J. and C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.
Municipal Corporation of Kurnool rep. by its Commissioner, Smt.K. Vijayalakshmi - Petitioner.
Versus
A. Padma Reddy and others - Respondent.
W.P.No.11215 of 2004 and Batch
Decided on 17-1-2007.
Advocate appeared
Mr. S.A. Chari, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. P. Raghavender Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
G.P for Labour for Respondent No.2.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947– Section 2-A (2), 25-F, 2(k), 2-A, 10 (1),12, 22, 2 (k), 4-K – Industrial Disputes Rules – Rule 11 (6),3,9, 10,73,74 and 11 – Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 –Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 –Code of Civil Procedure – Section 80 – Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Tender Issue – Mandatory Form – Whether Rule 11 (6) and Form K-4 of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 are mandatory or directory – Held, Single Judge observed that while Section 2-A is substantive, sub-section (2) thereof is procedural in nature and the same does not have effect of restricting or expanding scope of substantive right created under Section 2-A and in absence of sub-section (2), only way for an individual worker to gain an entry into Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, even in event of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination was through process of conciliation followed by reference under Section 10 (1) – Single Judge then referred to contents of Form K-4 and held that when a special procedure is provided for in substitution of one prescribed under the Act and when the application is required to be submitted in the prescribed form, any deviation there from is impermissible – Single Judge that an application filed under Section 2-A (2) cannot be entertained unless the same is in the prescribed form cannot be treated as correct and the observations contained in the above reproduced paragraph cannot be treated as good law – Court have not dealt with other judgments on which reliance has been placed by Sri Chari because they do not have any direct bearing on the interpretation of Section 2-A (2) of the Act and Rule 11 (6) of the Rules read with Form K-4 or similar provisions – Order Accordingly
These petitions filed by the Municipal Corporation of Kurnool for quashing order dated 4-5-2005 passed by Chairman-cum Presiding Officer, Industrial Tridunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur in I.A.No.413 of 2003 (I.D.No.77 of 2003) and batch have been listed before the Division Bench for determination of the following question of law:
"Whether Rule 11 (6) and Form K-4 of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 are mandatory or directory?
The background facts:
2. In the year 1989, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, after noticing that the practice of engaging daily wage employees and demand for regularisation of such employees has been resulting in over-staffing in the local bodies, issued Memo NO.1 02191/ ESTT/IV/88-1 dated 9-1-1989, whereby the Gram Panchayats were permitted to get the work relating to sweeping of roads, cleaning of side drains, maintenance of water supply, electricity and scavenging done on contract basis by meeting the expenditure from out of their own funds.
3. In furtherance of the above noted policy of the State Government, Kallur Gram Panchayat (for short, the Gram Panchayat), after seeking permission from District Panchayat Officer, Kurnool called for tenders in the year 1993 for engaging Sanitary Mastries, Sweepers, Scavengers, Fitters, Pump Operators, Tractor Drivers, Coolies, Electricians, Watchmen and Motor Mechanics. Respondents No.1 in these petitions (who shall hereinafter be collectively described as workmen), submitted their tenders. Since their tenders were found lowest, the Gram Panchayat engaged them on contract basis for a period of one year. They were paid out of the funds of the Gram Panchayat. Their work was controlled and supervised by the authorities of the Gram Panchayat. The term of their contract was renewed/fresh contracts were entered by increasing the amount by 10% over the earlier rate of contract. This continued till the merger of the Gram Panchayat with the petitioner Corporation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.68, Municipal Administration, dated 8-2-2002, pursuant to which, the services of the workmen were also taken over by the petitioner Corporation. They worked in the Corporation till March 2003. In the meanwhile, the petitioner Corporation issued tender notice dated 9-1-2003 for maintenance of water supply and distribution in Kallur area and awarded contract to the lowest tenderer G. Lakshmi Reddy. As a sequel to this, services of the workmen were discontinued.
4. While they were still working under the Gram Panchayat, some of the workmen filed Writ Petition No.24024 of 2000 for issue of a direction to the Gram Panchayat to regularise their services. The same was disposed of by the High Court with an observation that the petitioners can avail remedy by approaching the Labour Court. Some others filed O.A.No.7365 and 7367 of 1999 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for similar relief. Both the applications were dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to decide disputes which can appropriately be raised under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act). Another batch of workmen filed Writ Petition Nos.24245 and 23486 of 2000 for regularisation of service, but they were allowed to be withdrawn without prejudice to their right to workout their remedies in the Labour Court.
5. Immediately after termination of their services in March 2003, the workmen filed applications under Section 2-A (2) of the Act as amended by Andhra Pradesh Act NO.32 of 1987. The same were registered as I.D.Nos.77, 82, 6, 7 and 8 of 2003. On being noticed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur (hereinafter referred to as the Labour Court), the Corporation filed Writ Petition No.20232 of 2003 and batch for issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the Labour Court from adjudicating the dispute raised by the workmen. According to the petitioner Corporation, the applicants were engaged on contract
