Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 2207
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.
Satadru Biswas & another - Petitioners
Versus
State of Telangana, Department of Labour Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government, & others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 28527 of 2024
Decided On : 05-12-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : R Vijay Gopal .. T
For the Respondent: GP For Labour
The court affirms that special labor laws prevail over general procedural laws in adjudicating employment disputes, mandating timely resolutions.
Headnote:(A) Telangana Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 - Sections 38 and 50 - Employee claims delayed variable pay and recovery of wages - Petition filed alleging authority’s procedural lapses and reliance on Civil Procedure Code 1908 instead of the Act - Court emphasizes that special law prevails over general law, thus directing the authority to dispose of applications timely. (Paras 1.1, 6, and 8)
(B) Quasi-Judicial Proceedings - It is established that quasi-judicial bodies must adhere to procedures prescribed by relevant special laws, negating general procedural frameworks unless specifically mandated. (Paras 1.1 and 1.3)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners seek recovery of wages claiming procedural deviations by the authority in managing wage disputes under the 1988 Act while arguing wrongful adjustments to their pay structures.
Findings of Court:
Court ordered timely adjudication of wage recovery applications within two months, reflecting adherence to special legislation.
Issues: The core issue includes whether the quasi-judicial authority followed the correct procedural laws under the 1988 Act in wage claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the importance of expedited resolutions under the Act, reinforcing the inadequacy of relying on general procedural law where special provisions apply.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of with directions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. employee's claim for wage recovery and procedural violations. (Para 1) |
| 2. respondent’s arguments against procedural claims and jurisdiction. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court's direction regarding timely adjudication. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. requirement for timely resolution of pending applications. (Para 7) |
| 5. writ petition conclusions and directive to resolve cases. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER :
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.
Petitioner No. 1 claims to be the employee of Respondent No.4 company, joined on offer letter dated 17.06.2017, as Head of Sales with 18,00,000/- + Rs.3,00,000/- variable pay basis. It is stated, from April 2019, Respondent No.4 arbitrarily, without any reason and cause, changed the variable component payment from Rs.3 lacs to 4% of the sales generated by him and in addition, also committed that if the applicant achieves the target above the set target, then commission of 8% was to be paid to him, which was agreed. During this period, it is stated, petitioner No.1 has brought a considerable revenue leading to crores of rupees to the company in the form of sale deals. His salary due to excellent performance was increased from Rs.18 lacs to Rs.25 lacs and later to Rs.30 lacs per annum from January 2020; applicant’s varibale pay wages was being paid with a lag of one year which is completely illegal under the applicable laws of Telangana State under Section 38 of Telangana Shops and Establishments Act , 1988. Hence, petitioner No.1 is stated to have filed the Application for recovery of wages on 21.06.2024 and the condone delay Application on 26.06.2024 registered as Case S&E I.A. No. 14 of 2024 and Petitioner No. 2 Application is filed as Case S&E No., 9 of 2024 on the file of the Court of Authority appointed under Section 50 of the 1988 Act i.e. the Court of Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District.
1.1. Respondent No. 1 is following the Civil Procedure Code 1908 (CPC) while conducting the proceedings, despite being a quasi-judicial body and not following the procedure for proceedings as laid down in the 1988 Act. The said Act is special law, dealing with the Employment Rights of the private employees working in Shops and Establishments in Telangana State, and it is well -ettled law that provisions of the Special law prevails over the general law in conducting the Court proceedings while deciding the matters before it for any dispute arising for violations of the provisions of the Act.
1.2. In Case No. S&E IA 14 of 2024 and Case S&E 9 of 2024, notice was issued to the respondent party on 02.07.2024, with hearing date as 18.07.2024 by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District (ACL RRDI), yet, respondent did not appear on the said date; the cases underwent several adjournments up to 10.09.2024. This robotic grant to adjournments, according to petitioners, is contrary to the law laid down in 1988 Act and also the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Yashpal Jain vs. Sushila Devi. Yet, the Authority is following the conventional CPC provisions and diluting the very purpose of the 1988 Act. It is also stated, Petitioner No. 2 also filed Writ Petition No. 7904 of 2024 praying the Court to declare "Bonded Labour by private Employment" as illegal.
1.3. It is reiterated that ACL RRD is following the provisions of the conventional Civil Procedure Code 1908 (CPC) while conducting the proceedings to adjudicate matters under the 1988 Act. This is contrary to the well-settled law and also illegal and violation of Section 50 of the 1988 Act read with Rule 25 of the 1990 Rules in which the procedure to deal with the Applications before the Authority for Recovery of wages, etcetera are already outlined. Even for termination of services related Appeal, Respondent No. 1 is required to follow summary trial procedure as outlined in Section 48 of 1988 Act read with Rule 21 of 1990 Rules.Therefore, when employment termination itself is to be decided as per summary trial procedure, recovery of wages Applications be
