I N THE HI GH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WRI T PETI TI ON No.31930 OF 2022 Betw een:

M/s ZL Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.

… Petitioner And Rajendra Chingaravelu and another … Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 15.04.2024 THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA

1. Whether Reporters of Local new spapers : Yes may be allow ed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/ Journals? : Yes

3. Whether Their Lordships w ish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes ___________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.31930 OF 2022 % 15.04.2024 Betw een:

M/s ZL Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.

… Petitioner And Rajendra Chingaravelu and another … Respondents Gist:

 Head Note:

!Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr Vadeendra Joshi ^ counsel for Respondent No.1: Mr N.Avaneesh Counsel for Respondent No.2 : G.P. for Labour ? Cases Referred:

(2019) SCC Online SC 1313 HON’BLE MRS JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.31930 OF 2022

ORDER:

Heard Mr. Vadeendra Joshi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, Mr. N. Avaneesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 1^st Respondent and learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking the relief as under:

“to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ order or direction setting aside the order dated 17. May 2020 passed by Respondent No. 2 in deferring IA No. 3 of 2021 to be decided along with the main appeal SE Case No. 30 of 2019 as being erroneous arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondent No. 2 to decide the interim application in a time bound manner”

3. PERUSED THE RECORD :

A) The conclusion arrived at in order impugned dt. 17.05.2020 passed in I .A.No.3/ 2021 in S.E. Case No.30/ 2019 passed by the 2nd Respondent on the file of the Court of the Appellate Authority appointed U/ s.48(1) of Telangana State Shops & Establishment Act, 1988 and the relevant portion of the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad in the I .A.No.3/ 2021 in S.E. Case No.30/ 2019, dt. 17.05.2020 is extracted hereunder :

“12. The adjudication of the current I.A. involves question of facts (i.e whether the applicant was in management and had substantial control over the affairs of the establishment/ company), it is well settled that a question of fact cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. Thus the 3rd question is also answered in negative.

It is therefore clear, that though the issue of whether or not the Appellant was in management and had control over the affairs of the establishment and thus is exempted u/s 73(1)(a) of the Act is valid issue, the same can only be decided after a proper trial. Those aspects this Authority feel, have to be decided at the trial and it will be premature to take a view on the contentions those raised by the defendants.

Thus, this Authority is of the opinion that this issue be added to the issues to be framed in the main appeal along with the other issues to be framed therein.

In the result the I A No. 03 of 2021 will be decided along with the main Appeal S.E. Case No. 30 of 2019 in the interest of justice. And the matter is posted to 10.06.2022 at 3.00 pm for filing of Chief Evidence affidavit of the applicant.”

B) The order dated 24.08.2022 passed in I .A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.31930 of 2022, w hich is in force, as on date, reads as under :

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the record.

Prima facie, having regard to the nature of functions and duties that are discharged by the 1^st respondent, he would have to be considered as discharging the managerial functions and stands excluded from the purview of the provisions of Shops and Establishments Act, 1988.

In view of the above, there shall be interim stay