Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Telangana
  4. /
  5. 2014
  6. /
  7. January

Apsrtc Rep By vs M Shivaraj Died Per Lrs And Others

High Court Of Telangana|11 June, 2014
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.24735 OF 2000 Between::-
APSRTC rep.by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad and another.
…Petitioners And M.Shivaraj (died per LRs RRs.1 to 5) and others.
…Respondents.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.24735 OF 2000 ORDER:
Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners-APSRTC and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
Aggrieved by the common order dated 11-2-2000 in C.M.A.Nos.23 and 24 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, where under both the appeals have been dismissed, confirming the common order dated 5-6-1996 in P.W.Case Nos.2 and 3 of 1994 on the file of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Sangareddy, directing the petitioner Corporation to deposit a sum of Rs.2,21,492/- (Rupees two lakhs, twenty one thousand, four hundred and ninety two only), the present writ petition is filed.
The writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act as well as the Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy as being illegal and without jurisdiction.
The brief facts which are essential for disposing of the writ petition may be stated as follows:- The respondents 1 to 5 are the legal representatives of late Mr.M.Shivaraj. They filed P.W.Case No.3 of 1994 before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Sangareddy, Medak District claiming an amount of Rs.24,274/- as delayed wages for the period from 1-12-1992 to 17-3-1994 along with costs and compensation.
Respondents 6 to 12 filed similar application before the 13th respondent in P.W.Case No.2 of 1994, claiming an amount of Rs.1,97,218/- as delayed wages for the period from 1-12-1992 to 1-5-1994. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act clubbed both the cases and passed a common order.
The respondents were working as casual cleaners in the petitioner corporation without any break and the corporation removed them from service without any justifiable reason. They filed W.P.No.18072 of 1989 alleging that they were removed from service without any justifiable reason and basing on the false assumption that they are contract labourers. They also filed W.P.M.P.No.23967 of 1989 and this Court passed orders directing the petitioner to continue the petitioners therein in service as casual cleaners.
The version of the respondents is that the authorities of the petitioner corporation disobeyed the orders passed by the High Court and prevented them from joining duty and on that they filed C.C.No.530 of 1993. Thereafter, the petitioner complied with the orders of the High Court. However, according to the respondents, they were not allowed to attend their duties as casual cleaners and they were not paid the wages for the period mentioned in the respective cases.
In the course of enquiry before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Mr.K.Suresh Kumar i.e., respondent No.6 was examined as Pw.1. He categorically stated in his evidence that he and other respondents were working as casual cleaners in APSRTC Medak Depot. So also Mr.M.Shivaraj filed P.W.Case No.3 of 1994. According to him, all of them have been working under the petitioner from 1986 without any break and they were receiving their wages from the Head Clerk of the petitioner corporation. They were cleaning and washing the buses and were also assisting the Assistant Mechanic of Relief Operations. He specifically deposed to the effect that in spite of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.23967 of 1989 in W.P.No.1807 of 1989, the officials of the petitioner corporation prevented them from discharging their duties. His evidence reveals that all the respondents were going to the premises of the petitioner corporation regularly, but they were being stopped from discharging their duties. They were sitting in front of the gate of the premises from 9.00 AM., to 5.30 PM., and the petitioner withheld their wages from the respective dates mentioned in their claim petitions. Though the petitioner contended that there was no Master and Servant relationship between the parties, it could not be able to establish the same by adducing any reliable evidence. The contention of the petitioner corporation that when there is an interim order to continue the respondents in service, the version that the respondents did not attend their duties cannot be accepted.
Considering the aforesaid facts, the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, held that there is no justifiable reason for the petitioner for denying the wages as per the orders passed by this Court. The learned Authority also did not accede to the contention that there is no specific direction from the High Court about payment of wages to the respondents, in view of the interim order passed by the High Court, there need not be any specific direction.
In C.M.A.Nos.23 and 24 of 1997, the learned Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy who is the appellate authority on re-appraisal of the evidence, confirmed the findings recorded by the learned authority under the Payment of Wages Act. The orders passed by both the authorities below are neither perverse nor can they be said to be contrary to the material available on record.
This Court is also of the view that in the light of the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.23967 of 1989, the respondents deemed to have discharged their duties and they need not adduce any documentary evidence in proof of the same since entire records are with the petitioner corporation.
Both the authorities have not committed any error of jurisdiction, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The Miscellaneous Petition pending if any shall stand closed.
R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 11-06-2014 Shr.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.24735 OF 2000 Date: 11-06-2014 Shr.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Apsrtc Rep By vs M Shivaraj Died Per Lrs And Others

Court

High Court Of Telangana

JudgmentDate
11 June, 2014
Judges
  • R Kantha Rao