Back
2014 Supreme(AP) 1332
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.
HCL Technologies Limited – Appellant
Vs.
The Appellate Authority – Respondent
W.P. Nos. 24040, 24065 of 2013 and 5601 of 2014
Decided On : 17.11.2014
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Vedula Srinivas for V.V.S.N. Raju
For Respondents/Defendant: G.P.
Headnote:
Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 - Section 48(1) - Employee filed an application - Termination of his service - Wages payable - Granting exemption to all Information Technology Enabled Service - Joined service of employer - Petitions are common and subject matter of these Writ petitions are interconnected they are being disposed of by this common order was employed as a Managing Consultant in HCL Technologies Limited - Senior Management Consultant for EMC Global Project a client of employer On-site EMC Contract for period – Employer employee resigned voluntarily but according to employee resignation was obtained from him duress - Before Assistant Commissioner of Labor contending that resignation was obtained from him by employer duress that it was unlawful and against principles of natural justice - He sought reinstatement into service with full back-wages and continuity of service - This was numbered as SE - Case counter-affidavit was filed by employer therein contending that Assistant Commissioner of Labor has no jurisdiction to entertain case that Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued - Information Technology Establishments in State of Andhra Pradesh from provisions – Held, In opinion question whether resignation of employee is voluntary or was obtained duress and is to be considered as termination of his services can be gone into by Asst Commissioner of Labor of Act only if sub- of Act can be applied to employer - Since this cannot be done in view of said G.O very application of employee of Act before Asst Commissioner of Labor was not maintainable and could not have been entertained by Asst. Commissioner of Labor - So hold that he had rightly rejected Case as not maintainable by applying said G.O - Consequently it has to be held that Commissioner of Labor in appeal filed by employee against order Case erred in holding that notwithstanding exemption granted to employer referred to above it is open to Asst - Commissioner of Labor to go into question whether resignation of employee was obtained duress or voluntarily and decide it – Appeal dismissed (Para 31)
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.
1. As the parties to these Writ petitions are common and the subject matter of these Writ petitions are interconnected, they are being disposed of by this common order.
The facts leading to the filing of these cases are as under:
2. Sri U. Venkat Ramana (hereinafter referred to as the 'employee') was employed as a Managing Consultant in HCL Technologies Limited HOB SCJ U-II (hereinafter referred to as the 'employer') under an offer-cum-appointment letter dt. 30.08.2010. He joined the service of the employer on 13.09.2010. He was re-designated as Senior ERP Specialist on 28.1.2011 and as Senior Management Consultant for EMC Global Project, a client of the employer, under an On-site EMC Contract for the period upto March 2013.
3. According to the employer, the employee resigned voluntarily on 11.10.2011, but according to the employee, the resignation was obtained from him under duress.
4. The employee filed an application on 07.12.2011 under Section 48(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vikarabad, contending that the resignation was obtained from him by the employer under duress; that it was unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. He sought reinstatement into service with full back-wages and continuity of service. This was numbered as SE. Case No. 7 of 2011.
5. A counter-affidavit was filed by the employer therein contending that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vikarabad, has no jurisdiction to entertain the case; that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued G.O. Ms. No. 53 [Labour and Employment Training in Factories II Department] dt. 20.06.2007 granting exemption to all the Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES) and Information Technology Establishments in the State of Andhra Pradesh from the provisions of Sections 15, 16, 21, 23, 31 and Sections 47(1),(2),(3) and (4) of the above Act for a period of five years from 30.5.2007 subject to certain conditions; that since the employer is an Information Technology company, it is exempted under the said GO from the provisions of Section 47(1),(2),(3) and (4) of the Act; that the allegation of the employee that the resignation letter dt. 11.10.2011 was obtained under force by the employer is false; that with ulterior motives he had filed this case before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vikarabad.
6. The employee also filed an application under Section 51 of the said Act before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vikarabad on 31.05.2012 alleging that his resignation was obtained under duress by the employer on 11.10.2011; that it amounts to termination of his service; and therefore, he shall be paid the following amounts by the employer, viz.,:
1. Notice pay for months as stipulated under the appointment letter dated 30th August 2010 (Rs.1,43,831 x 2
Rs.2,87,662/-
2. Provident Fund for total period amounting to
Rs.1,36,650/-
3. Variable pay from 1.10.2010 to 30.9.2011 as per appointment letter
Rs.1,60,000/-
4. E.L. Encashment for 15.5 days
Rs.87,545/-
7. In all, the employee, therefore sought a sum of Rs. 6,71,857/- from the employer. This was numbered as SE Case No. 1 of 2012.
8. A counter-affidavit was filed by the employer denying the claims made by the petitioner.
9. In this SE Case No. 1 of 2012, the employee filed his affidavit of evidence as AW. 1 on 31.12.2012 wherein he claimed not only the amounts mentioned in the application dt. 31.05.2012 filed by him, but in addition he claimed a sum of Rs. 23,33,333/- stating that he had not been paid salaries since November, 2011 till date and this amount represents the due wages payable to him.
10. By order dt. 05.11.2012, SE Case No. 7 of 2011 was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour holding
