AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy
Sri N.V. Malleshwar Rao, respondent No. 3 herein, filed A.P. Shops and Establishments Case No. 7 of 1996 before the Authority u/s 48 of the Shops and Establishments Act (for short ''the Act'') and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, West Godavari District against Sri Kothamasu Badrinarayana, respondent No. 4 herein, and the petitioner herein. He pleaded that he has been working as Clerk since 10 years prior to filing of the case in M/s. ANL Parcel Service, Hyderabad and that on 12.06.1995, the petitioner herein, who is working as Field Assistant and respondent No. 4, Agent to M/s. ANL Parcel Service, have terminated his services without any reason. He prayed that necessary action be taken against his illegal termination and orders be passed for reinstatement with back wages. Respondent No. 4 opposed the case by stating that he is only an Agent of M/s. ANL Parcel Service. He denied the existence of relationship of employer and employee between himself and respondent No. 3. The petitioner also filed the counter, on the same lines. He said that he was working as Field Inspector in M/s. ANL Parcel Service and that he is neither employer nor has the power to terminate anyone. He too denied the existence of relationship of employer and employee between himself and respondent No. 3. Through its order, dated 28.08.2000, respondent No. 1 allowed the case and held that respondent No. 3 is entitled to be reinstated into service with continuity of service and with full back wages. A direction was issued to M/s. ANL Parcel Service, represented by the petitioner herein, to implement the same.
The petitioner made an attempt to file a Second Appeal before respondent No. 2 herein. However, the appeal was returned on the ground that the conditions incorporated u/s 48 of the Act as to payment of back wages are not complied with. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition. He has also impleaded M/s. ANL Parcel Service as respondent No. 5.
Heard Sri P. Nageswara Sree, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Labour for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None appears for respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
The petitioner filed a copy of the petition filed by respondent No. 3 before respondent No. 1. It reads as under:
I am working for last 10 years in ANL Parcel Service as Clerk. On 12.06.1995, Field Inspector, Agent without assigning any reason, illegality terminated my services. I made representation to take me in service, but in vain.
I request you to take necessary action against my illegal termination on management and to reinstate me in service. Kindly pass necessary orders for 5 months salary for the period of illegal termination.
From this, it is evident that he claimed to be an employee of M/s. ANL Parcel Service. In case there was any unlawful termination, the only agency against which he could have claimed the relief was respondent No. 5 itself.
Whatever may have been the justification in impleading respondent No. 4 and the petitioner herein as respondents in the Case, at least, when both of them have denied any role either in the employment or alleged termination of respondent No. 3, the latter ought to have taken steps to implead his employer i.e. M/s. ANL Parcel Service.
Assuming that respondent No. 3 was not conversant with the procedure, respondent No. 1 ought to have insisted that the actual employer be made as a party to the proceedings. He, however, did not choose to do so. Curious part of it is that the direction for reinstatement and payment of back wages was issued to M/s. ANL Parcel Service, represented by the petitioner.
Where an employer is a limited company or a partnership firm, it is represented by a person specified in that behalf. The ultimate managerial authority would designate a person to represent the agency or organisation in the legal proceedings initiated by or against it. In this case, the agency was not impleaded by name. Secondly, though the petitioner was made as party to the proceedings, it was not even mentioned as to how he would represent the organisation. By no stretch of imagination, a Field Inspector can be said to be having the capacity to represent his employer. It was not even mentioned as to how he is part of the management.
Notwithstanding all these shortcomings, there would have been some scope for respondent No. 1 to issue directions, as it did, in case the order of appointment, if any, issued to respondent No. 3 was signed by the petitioner. Even that was not proved. Viewed from any angle, the order passed by respondent No. 1 cannot be sustained in law.
Hence, the writ petition is allowed, as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above witness the Hon''ble Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose, the Acting Chief Justice on this Thursday, the Nineteenth day of July, Two Thousand and Twelve.