HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.29922 of 2011 Dated 10-11-2011 W.P.No.29922 of 2011: M/s.Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited, A limited Company, incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Asct,1956 and having its office at 36, S.D.Road, Secunderabad represented by its Chief Executive Officer, Mr. O.Thomas, s/o Ouseph Pailey, aged about 64 years, Private Employee, resident of 36, S.D.Road, Secunderabad. …Petitioner. And: The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Krishna District, Vijayawada and others. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.29922 of 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the 1st respondent in issuing show cause notice dated 14-10-2011 under Sections 17(b) (2) of the Working Journalist and other News Paper Establishment’s (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (For short “the Act”) on the ground that the petitioner is not allowing the workmen into the factory, not making attendance register available to them to sign in the register, not allowing the workmen to perform their duties without any reasonable cause or notice as illegal and arbitrary and seeking to set aside the same. The case of the writ petitioner, in brief, is as follows: The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner company is involved in publication of news papers and magazines and leading English Daily ‘Deccan Chronicle’, ‘Andhrabhoomi’ Telugu Daily and other weekly and monthly magazines. For the said purpose, the petitioner engages employees in different categories i.e., Reporters, Sub-Editors etc., The petitioner engaged the 2nd respondent as Retoucher since 24-4-1991, 3rd respondent as Retoucher since 22-5-1989 and 4th respondent as Assistant Paste maker w.e.f. 22-5- 1989. Respondents 2 to 4 stopped attending their duties on their own as they are deeply involved in their business activities and personal obligations and started making allegations on the pretext that the petitioner is not allowing them into factory/establishment, not making attendance registers available to them to sing in the registers and not allowing the workmen to perform their duties without reasonable cause or notice. The show cause notice is issued without any representation to the 1st respondent by respondents 2 to 4 and the 1st respondent without verifying the records and without following the procedure laid down under the Act and without conducting any enquiry issued show cause notice dated 14-10-2011 requiring the petitioner to show cause in writing as to why action should not be initiated against it for violation of the Act. Respondents 2 to 4 along with eight others filed applications under Section 17 of the Act before the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Eluru against the petitioner Management and the same was disposed of with certain direction by the authority which reads as under: 1. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada who is an Inspector notified under Sec.17-B Act shall inspect the establishment and verify the contents of the complaints of the Workmen and make observations as to whether the provisions of the Act are violated. If there is no violation, he shall take action as per the law. 2. The applicants may file an application under Sec.17(1) in Form-C of the Act within 15 days; specifying the amounts due to each of the worker, duly explaining the facts of the case while enclosing the relevant documents, if any. On receipt of such claims applications under Sec.17(1), the Opposite Party may file counter and the process of adjudication will take place.” The main case is posted on 26-8-2011 at 3 P.M., at Vijayawada. But, the 1st respondent-authority instead of following the same, straight away issued the impugned notice. Hence, the very action of the 1st respondent in issuing impugned show cause notice is illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for labour. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in response to the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking time to submit explanation and the same is pending. But the 1st respondent is threatening for lodging prosecution against the petitioner and hence, the petitioner is constrained to file this writ petition. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader for Labour submits that the show cause notice issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner is legal. He further contends that the respondents 2 to 4 have represented their grievance and when the 1st respondent Commissioner inspected the factory of the petitioner on 25-8-2011 under Section 17(b)(2), it was noticed that absent was marked against the names of the respondents 2 to 4 since 28-5-2011 till the date of inspection in the attendance register and that the inspection clearly reveals that the petitioner is simply marking absent against their names while not allowing the workers to attend their duty and that in this connection, the 1st respondent- Commissioner has rightly issued show cause notice to the petitioner and therefore, the same is just and reasonable and hence, the writ petition questioning the same is liable to be dismissed. Admittedly, the impugned notice in the writ petition is a show cause notice. The said notice has been issued basing on the allegations made by the respondents 2 to 4 who are admittedly employees of the petitioner and on the inspection made by the 1st respondent. However, it is obvious from the material available on record that the petitioner sought time for submitting his explanation and the same is pending before the 1st respondent. In that view of the matter, the very approach of the petitioner at this stage of the proceedings, is premature one on the ground that the request made by the petitioner, for extension of time so as to submit the explanation, is pending consideration with the authorities and as such, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ____________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 10-11-2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.29922 of 2011 Dated 10-11-2011