HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 17718 OF 2024

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed to interdict the 3^rd respondent Tribunal from proceeding with trial / enquiry in connection with M.P. No. 6 of 2019 filed by the 4^th respondent and consequently to hold that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the same.

2. The brief facts of the case are: Petitioner company was formed through a Scheme of Arrangement sanctioned by this Court on 01.09.2015 in Company Petitions No. 175 to 178 of 2015, demerging from M/s Maheshwari Megaventures Ltd. The latter came into existence following the amalgamation of M/s Ashish Developers and Builders and M/s RKM Builders Pvt. Ltd. under orders dated 22.03.2005 in C.P.Nos. 201, 202, and 203 of 2004. M/s Dewan Bahadur Ramgopal Mills (DBR Mills) began operations in 1920 on a leased property at Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad, owned by Chenai family. The property later became the subject of a Compromise Decree dated 20.10.1967 in O.S.No. 38 of 1967 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, granting ownership to Mrs.

Khorshed Shapoor Chenai. DBR Mills faced financial difficulties and was declared a sick unit under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985. The mill defaulted on rent payments, prompting an eviction suit, O.S.No. 69 of 2003, filed by Mrs. Chenai. The suit was resolved through a compromise, allowing Mrs. Chenai to retain Acs.6.00 and transferring Acs.16.00 to tenant. Petitioner facilitated this settlement and became a party to the eviction suit as Plaintiff No. 2. Before the compromise, Mrs. Chenai had executed an Agreement of Sale on 03.12.1998, transferring Acs.22.5 to M/s Ashish Developers and Builders (now petitioner). Subsequently, petitioner entered a Development Agreement with DBR Mills on 15.03.1999 to develop Acs.16.00, contingent on settling the monetary claims of mill workers. The compromise agreement became void with the dismissal of SLP Nos. 5163-5164 of 2022 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 18.04.2022. Consequently, DBR Mills remained a tenant, and Mrs. Chenai retained ownership of the entire leased property. Mrs. Chenai executed registered sale deeds for Acs.6.00 in favour of petitioner under Document Nos. 1349 and 1350 of 2009 on 27.10.2006 and 28.10.2006. Meanwhile, petitioner entered Section 12(3) Agreement with six workers’ unions on 07.03.2017 to settle claims at Rs.7 lacs per worker, conditional on specific terms. Petitioner contends that the agreement dated 07.03.2017 is not Section 12(3) settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, as they were not the employer of the workers. Additionally, the agreement's enforceability was invalidated by objections from DBR Mills’ management. Based on the agreement, the 4th respondent initiated proceedings before the 3rd respondent Tribunal under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act in MP No. 6 of 2019, seeking an award of Rs.49,00,000/- plus 12% annual interest. Petitioner argues, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction, as there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties. Petitioner therefore, challenges the enforceability of the settlement under Section 33-C(1) of the Act, invoked by the 2nd respondent to issue a recovery certificate and initiate criminal proceedings.

It is also stated the 3^rd Respondent Tribunal, through order dated 22.09.2023 in I.A.No. 13 of 2021 in MP No. 6 of 2019, directed petitioner to deposit Rs.49,00,000/- within four months. The order was stayed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1956 of 2024 on 31.01.2024, however, the Tribunal continues to proceed with the matter, prompting the present Writ Petition.

Petitioner asserts that settlement dated 07.03.2017 does not fall within the purview of the Act, rendering the Tribunal without jurisdiction to adjudicate MP No. 6 of 2019.

3. During the hearing, I.A.No. 2 of 2024 was taken out to substitute the name of the 4th respondent as ‘DBR Mills Employees’ Mazdoor Union (Regd. No. B-1986) r