1. Compulsory retirement from service upheld — Challenge to award dismissing industrial dispute under Industrial Disputes Act. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(AP) 1234
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.
V. Sreenivasa Rao - Appellant
Vs.
Labour Court, Guntur and others - Respondent
WP No.24581 of 2020
Decided On : 06-03-2026
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : B. Srinivasa Rao
For the Respondent: V.V. Satish and V.R. Reddy Kovvuri
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : B. Srinivasa Rao
For the Respondent: V.V. Satish and V.R. Reddy Kovvuri
Compulsory retirement constitutes "otherwise termination" under Section 2A(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the absence of a statutory appeal, a Labour Court award contrary to law can be challenged via the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2A(1) - Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Compulsory retirement - Whether it constitutes "otherwise termination" of service - Jurisdiction of Labour Court - Scope of extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court - Compulsory retirement of an employee can be treated as another form of termination falling within the scope of Section 2A(1) of the Act, and accordingly, the Labour Court is the competent authority to adjudicate such a dispute. (Para 7)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Article 226 vs Article 227 - In the absence of any statutory appeal provided under the Act against an award of a Tribunal, such a judicial order can be challenged by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While the power of superintendence under Article 227 is limited to testing jurisdiction and errors on the face of the record, Article 226 allows for comprehensive adjudication if an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority is contrary to law or lacks jurisdiction. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
An employee was dismissed from service following an enquiry into alleged misconduct and misappropriation. On a mercy petition, the punishment was modified to compulsory retirement. The employee subsequently raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court dismissed the claim on the ground that compulsory retirement does not constitute an industrial dispute and therefore does not fall within its jurisdiction under Section 2A(1) of the Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Labour Court's finding was based on a misunderstanding of the provisions of the Act. It held that compulsory retirement is indeed a form of termination under Section 2A(1). Additionally, it ruled that the award could be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it was contrary to the law and there was no statutory appeal available.
Issues: Whether compulsory retirement constitutes "otherwise termination" under Section 2A(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether the High Court can exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside a Labour Court award.
Ratio Decidendi: Compulsory retirement falls within the definition of "otherwise termination" under Section 2A(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, thereby creating an admissible industrial dispute. In the absence of a statutory remedy, an award provided by a Tribunal that is contrary to law or lacks merit can be interfered with by the High Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.
Result: Award set aside and matter remanded to the Labour Court for adjudication on merits.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- labour and industrial law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Compulsory retirement falls under Section 2A(1) 'otherwise termination' vs. dispute raised after five years, beyond three-year limit. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Compulsory retirement is 'otherwise termination' under Section 2A(1). Tribunal's rejection due to lack of jurisdiction was erroneous. (Para 7 , 9 )
4. Compulsory retirement falls within 'otherwise termination of service' under Section 2A(1), triable by Labour Court or Tribunal. (Para 7 )
5. Award set aside; matter remanded for fresh adjudication on merits. Tribunal directed to dispose of within two years. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
6. Does compulsory retirement constitute 'otherwise termination of service' under Section 2A(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act?
Yes, compulsory retirement is a form of termination falling within the scope of 'otherwise termination of service' under Section 2A(1). (Para 6 , 7 )
7. Can an award under the Industrial Disputes Act be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution?
Yes, in the absence of a statutory appeal, an award can be challenged under Article 226 for jurisdictional error or legal infirmity. (Para 8 , 9 )
8. What is the limitation period for raising an industrial dispute under Section 2A(3) of the Act?
An application must be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of termination. (Para 6 )
ORDER
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Mandamus, to declare the Award dated 23.10.2019 in I.D.No.89 of 2009 on the file of dthe 1st respondent Court, as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act by setting aside the same and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 & 3 to reinstate the petitioner with all attendant benefits with backwages with interest @ 12 p.a and grant cost of the proceedings.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the ERO Town Office of APSPDCL at Ongole on 01.06.1993 and had worked there until 03.08.2003. On 01.09.2003, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the authorities concerned for alleged misconduct. As per the proceedings dated 01.09.2003 issued by the 2nd respondent, the Divisional Engineer, Tirupati was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry into the charges. During the enquiry, charges were framed against the petitioner alleging that he collected an amount of Rs.25,700 from a consumer bearing S.C. No.045050000305 of Gamallapalem village towards non-slab bill charges but failed to account for the same. It was also alleged that he tampered with the billing records by changing the service from “bill stopped non-slab service” to “non-slab live service.” Further allegations were made that the petitioner misappropriated CC charges collected from certain consumers without issuing proper receipts in respect of some services. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying all the charges. However, based on the enquiry, a show cause notice dated 07.01.2004 was issued to him, to which he again submitted his explanation. Without properly considering his explanation, the 2nd respondent passed final orders on 15.04.2004 dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Chief Engineer, but the same was rejected on 26.03.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a Mercy Petition to the Chairman and Managing Director of APSPDCL, Tirupati. By order dated 20.07.2004, the Chairman and Managing Director modified the order of punishment of dismissal to compulsory retirement and directed that the suspension period be treated as leave on duty. Challenging the order of compulsory retirement, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No.89 of 2009. In that dispute, the petitioner filed I.A. No.260 of 2018 before the Labour Court seeking to add the Chairman and Managing Director of APSPDCL as a necessary party. The said application was dismissed on 27.11.2018. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed W.P. No.8307 of 2019 before the Hon'ble High Court, which was allowed on 24.07.2019. Thereafter, the main industrial dispute was heard and the 1st respondent passed an award on 23.10.2019 dismissing the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. During hearing, Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel representing Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is contrary to Section 2A(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short „the Act'). He submits that Section 2A(1) of the Act deals with the different modes by which an employee's service may be terminated by the employer, which would fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for adjudication. In the present case, the petitioner's services were terminated by way of compulsory retirement on the ground of alleged misconduct. According to the counsel, under Section 2A(1) of the Act, compulsory retirement would fall within the meaning of “otherwise termination.” Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's claim by the first respondent is contrary to Section 2A(1) of the Act, and the order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set-aside. In support of his contention, he placed relia
