THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.13810 of 2024

ORDER:

The petitioner-Celtiss Therapeutics Private Limitedis a Company registered under the Companies Act, 2013. Petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorari, by calling for the records pertaining to the Order dated 16.03.2024 passed by the Authority Appointed under Section 53(1) of The Telangana Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 & Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I; and the Order dated 03.06.2023 passed by the Authority under Section 50 of the Act & Assistant Commissioner of Labour-III; and quash the orders, as the same are illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard Mr. Malipeddi Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner-Company; Mr. R. Krishnaswamy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Labour for respondent Nos.1 to 3; and Mr. G. Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, essentially contends that the respondent- Authorities does not have jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition; that the term ‘wages’ does not include the Travelling Allowance, HRA, Conveyance Allowance, LTA etc., as claimed by the unofficial respondents/workmen, and that the Authority is empowered to adjudicate non-payment of wages as defined under Section 2(23)(e) of the Act; that the workmen worked in a Managerial capacity and therefore the provisions of the Act do not apply in the case of the workmen, and the petitioner-Company is exempted under Section 73(1)(a) of the Act; that the petitioner-Company was not aware of the proceedings and its legal implications and it was only after receipt of Show Cause notice dated 02.05.2024 that too belatedly served by the 3^rd respondent-Appellate Authority, the petitioner-Company came to know of the impugned proceedings; and the workmen have filed Execution Petition before the 3^rd respondent seeking implementation of the impugned Award; and therefore this Court may set aside the impugned Orders as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Appellate Authority, based on the counter affidavit, essentially contends that the petitioner was represented through their counsel in the proceedings held before the respondent-Authorities and the petitioner therefore cannot contend that he was unaware of the proceedings or its legal implications; that mere nomenclature / designation of the post being “manager”would not be sufficient to claim exemption under Section 73, as such a person with a designated title of manager is required to have control over the affairs of the company to claim such exemption; that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Prem Sagar vs. The Standard Vacuum Oil Company, Madras though did not lay down an exhaustive list of criteria as to what or which factor conclude a person as “Manager” so as to be exempt under Section 73, however, broadly outlined certain criteria which are not satisfied by the workmen and therefore petitioner-Company cannot seek exemption against the petitioners; that the term “wages” includes and excludes

11965 AIR 111

certain components and also specifies what constitute an authorized deduction and the circumstances that affect such deduction; that the claim of the workmen is covered by the meaning as defined under Sub-section 23 of Section 2 of the Telangana Shops and Establishments Act, 1988; and therefore the challenge laid against the impugned orders cannot sustain and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it is to be noted that from a perusal of the material papers filed with the writ affidavit, and also the counter affidavit of respondent No.3, particularly the appointment letters (for example Ex.A1–appointment letter dated 25.07.2018 of the workman-Mr. P. Venugopal),