AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.N. Rao, J.—This writ appeal by the second respondent in the writ petition is from the judgment of our learned brother Bhaskar Rao, J. in Writ petition No. 13457 of 1987 allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein for a direction to implement the order passed by the second respondent herein--the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle I, Guntur--directing reinstatement and payment of backwages. The first respondent herein was originally appointed as a clerk in Sri Bhavana Rushi Weavers'' Co-operative Production and Sales Society, Chebrole, on 1-4-1977. By an order dated 13-10-1980 his services were terminated; whether the termination was on the ground of fraudulent misconduct or otherwise is a matter in controversy- there is no clear record on this aspect. Challenging that order of termination the first respondent--Shri Nageshwara Rao--preferred a statutory appeal to the second respondent--the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Guntur--who, by his order dated 18lh January, 1982, allowed the appeal and directed reinstatement as well as payment of back-wages. Although that authority granted several adjournments no one represented Sri Bhavana Rushi Weavers'' Co-operative Production and Sales Society and, therefore, the appeal was allowed after the society was set ex parte. Challenging the legality of that order a statutorily prescribed second appeal was preferred by the society to the Labour Court. Even before the Labour Court the society did not pursue the remedy and, therefore, the learned Judge set the society ex parte and dismissed the appeal by an order dated 15-4-1986. During the interregnum certain changes took place; Sri Bhavana Rushi Weavers'' Co-operative Production and Sales Society was merged with the present appellant--Sri Sreenivasa Weavers'' Co-operative Production and Sales Society--on 24-3-1984. The merger was effected u/s 15-A of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. The application filed by the first respondent for impleading Sri Sreenivasa Weavers'' Co-operative Production and Sales Society was dismissed, due to non-prosecution, by the Labour Court on 15-4-1986, the date on which the main appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the first respondent filed OP No. 36 of 1982 before the Principal Munsiff Magistrate, Tenali, for implementation of the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour and that application also ended in dismissal as the counsel for the petitioner was not present. Thereafter, Writ Petition No. 13457 of 1987 was filed by the first respondent seeking a mandamus to implement the order passed by the second respondent.
Our learned brother Bhaskar Rao, J. allowed the writ petition observing that since the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour became final after the Labour Court affirmed it in second appeal, the appellant herein, second respondent in the writ petition, was bound to implement that order. Aggrieved by that the present appeal was brought by the second respondent in the writ petition.
Shri V. Parabrahma Sastry, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that when once the application preferred by the first respondent for impleading the appellant as a party was dismissed by the Labour Court on 15-4-1986 any liability arising from the order of the Labour Court cannot be fastened on the appellant. The dismissal of the application--OP No. 36 of 1982--was not questioned by filing an appeal as provided u/s 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1966, and, therefore, the writ petition filed by the first respondent was totally misconceived.
We are unable to accept both the contentions. u/s 41 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1966, an appeal is provided in respect of matters arising out of termination of employees. By Sub-section (3) a second appeal is provided to the Labour Court constituted u/s 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Sub-section (4), which is relevant for the purpose of this writ appeal, reads :
''''Any amount directed to be paid under this section may be recovered�
(a) if the authority is a Magistrate, by the authority, as if it were a fine imposed by him as Magistrate; and
(b) if the authority is not a Magistrate, by any Magistrate to whom the authority makes application in this behalf, as if it were a fine imposed by such Magistrate."
The application filed by the first respondent before the Munsiff Magistrate u/s 41(4) was totally misconceived. In a case where a direction for reinstatement was given that would not be enforced by resorting to the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 41. It is true that the first respondent made such an application, obviously under a mistaken impression about the legal position. But that would not disentitle him from approaching this Court under Article 226 for a direction to the appellant herein to implement the order issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, the second respondent. We must also make it clear in this context that there is no appeal provided against the order passed u/s 41(4) to the District Court. Only orders passed u/s 44 are appealable u/s 46.
By an order dated 24-3-1984, the defunct Sri Bhavana Rushi Weavers'' Co-operative Production and Sales Society, the original employer of the first respondent, was merged with the present appellant-society. Section 15-A (3)(iv) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, provides:
"15-A. Identification of viability of societies and consequences thereof:--
(1) ....
(2) ...
(3) On making such order:--
(i) ....
(ii) ....
(iii) ....
(iv) the assets of such amalgamated or divided society shall, stand transferred to, and its liabilities shall devolve on, the society with which it is amalgamated and all Immovable properties located in the area transferred shall be deemed to be transferred to the society to which the area is transferred;"
By virtue of the above provision the appellant-society, as successor-in-interest to Sri Sreenivasa Rushi Weavers'' Co-operative Production and Sales Society, is bound to implement the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour; its liability to pay the backwages and to take back the first respondent into service is statutorily enjoined by the above provision.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment under appeal and dismiss the writ appeal but, in the circumstances, without costs.