IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 15418 of 2008 Between: 1.The Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company, Rep by its Managing Director, B-4, Industrial Estate, Jhalna - 431 203 (Maharashtra) 2.The Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company, Rep by General Manager, B-4, Industrial Estate, Jhalna - 431 203 (Maharashtra) 3.The Branch Manager, The Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company (Branch) Gujalamandyam, Tirupati ..... PETITIONERS AND 1.A. Ramalakshmi, W/o. A. Changalaraulu, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 2.C. Adilakshmi, W/o. C. Yellaiah, Gajulamandyam, Krishnaiah, S/o. Gangaiah, 28 years, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 3.A. Krishnaiah, S/o. Gangaiah, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 4.J. Chengamma, W/o. J. Nagaraju, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 5.T. Chandrahasa Reddy, S/o. T. Munirami Reddy, Chengareddy Patteda, Renigunta. 6.A. Manamma, W/o. A. Mani, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 7.C. Chinakka, W/o. Venkatasmuni, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 8.C. Prameela, W/o. C. Venkatasmuni, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 9.K. Chinnakka, W/o. K. Subramanyam, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 10.C.Dhanalakshmi, W/o. C. Surbramanyam, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 11.C. Lakshmikanthamma, W/o. Subramanyam, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 12.P. Muni Subbamma, W/o. P. Anandiah, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 13.G. Parvathi, W/o. G. Subramanyam, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 14.G. Sarojamma, W/o. G. Venkatamuni, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 15.L. Venkatamuni, S/o. L. Muniswamy, Mandur, V & P, Renigunta. 16.M. Sri Hari Reddy, S/o. M. Krishna Reddy, Gajulamanyam, Renigunta. 17.P. Sivaiah, S/o. P. Muniramaiah, Gajulamanyam, Renigunta. 18.S. Muneswaraiah, S/o. S. Munaswamy, Gajulamanyam, Renigunta. 19.K. Vasanthamma, W/o. K. Subramanyam, Athur, Renigunta. 20.P. Munemma, W/o. P. Sorakailaka Swamy, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 21.L. Savithri, W/o. L. Doraswamy, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 22.M. Munemma, W/o. C. Surbramanyalu Chetty, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 23.T. Maleswari, W/o. T. Sahadeva Reddy, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 24.G. Jagadeswaraiah, S/o. G. Radhakrishnaiah, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 25.S. Rangamma, W/o. S. Naraiah, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 26.S. Venkatamuni Reddy, S/o. Gangi Reddy, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 27.S. Dhanamma, W/o. S. Nagoor Swamy, Neelachimpet, Gajulamandyam(P), Renigunta. 28.P. Mangamma, W/o. P. Srinivasulu, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 29.S. Rukkamma, W/o. S. Chengalrayulu, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 30.V. Sarojamma, W/o. V. Arunachalam Chetty, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 31.P. Reddamma, W/o. Eragam Reddy, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 32.C. Chandramma, W/o. C. Raghava Reddy, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 33.T. Mohan, S/o. T. Rajugopal Reddy, Chengareddy PettRenigunta. 34.N. Lakshmi, W/o. N. Sooribabu, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 35.B. Harinath Reddy, S/o. B. Srinivasulu Reddy, Chengareddy Patteda, Renigunta. 36.P. Balamma, W/o. P. Munaswamy, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 37.K. Bhaskar, S/o. K. Ramaiah, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 38.M. Jayamma, W/o. M. Veeraswamy, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 39.P. Govindamma, W/o. P. Subbaramaia, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 40.B. Satyavathi, W/o. P. Subrahmanyam, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 41.S. Jyothi, W/o. Munirami Reddy, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 42.N. Subbamma, W/o. N. Munikrishnaiah, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 43.P. Dhanalakshmi, W/o P. Krishnaiah, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 44.M. Lakshmamma, W/o. M. Gangaiah, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 45.S. Jayamma, W/o. S. Munikrishna Reddy, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 46.G. Dhanamma, W/o. G. Radhakrishnaiah, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 47.K. Munemma, W/o. K. Mueiah, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 48.M. Chandramma, W/o. M. Subrahmanyam, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 49.C.Mangamma W/o.C.Munirishnaiah Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 50.A.Padma W/o.A.Ngaiah Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 51.C.Munemma W/o.C.Gangaiah Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 52.N.Gamma W/o.N.Subramanyam Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 53.G.Jayamma W/o.G.Venkatasubbaiah Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 54.C.Nagamma W/o.C.Muneiah Gajulamandyam, Renigunta. 55.T.Lakshmi Devi W/o.T.Lakshmi Narayana K.L.M.Hospital Gajulamandyam (P) Renigunta 56.L.Sankaramma W/o.K.Krishnaiah Gajulamandyam Renigunta 57.M.V.Ramana Murthy S/o.M.Krishnaiah Chetty Athur (V&P) Renigunta 58.B.Mohan Reddy S/o.B.Srinivasulu Reddy Athur (V&P) Renigunta 59.G.Munemma W/o.G.Polaiah Gajulamandyam Renigunta 60.K.Mohan Rao S/o.K.Mani Gajulamandyam Renigunta 61.A.Sahadeva Reddy S/o.A.Seena Reddy Changareddy Patteda Renigunta 62.A.Mohan S/o. A.Venkata Reddy Athur Renigunta 63.K.Kanemma W/o.K.Venkata RAmaiah Gajulamandyam Renigunta 64.K.Lakshmamma W/o.K.Gangaiah Gajulamandyam Renigunta 65.P.Parvathamma W/o.P.Sankaraiah Gajulamandyam Renigunta 66.B.Chengamma W/o.B.Gundaiah Gajulamandyam Renigunta 67.P.Chenchulakshmi W/o.P.siddaiah Gajulamandyam Renigunta 68.C.Yeoda W/o.C.Muniramaiah Gajulamandyam Renigunta 69.C.Venkatasubbaiah S/o.C.Advaiah Gajulamandyam Renigunta 70.P.Subramanyam S/o.P.Naraiah Athur Renigunta 71.R.V.Ramaiah S/o. r.v.Ramaiah Gajulamandyam Renigunta 72.C.Sulochanamma W/o.C.Singaraiah Chetty Athur Renigunta 73.The Industrial Tribunal-cum-LabourCourt,Anantapur rep.by its Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the Order dated 10-9-2007 in MP No. 1 of 2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court, Anantapur and quash the same, holding that the said order is illegal and void, being without jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.THOOMSRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.15418 of 2008 Order: Questioning the order dated 10.09.2007, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in M.P. No.1 of 2002, directing the petitioners-Management to pay the gratuity as per Rules with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum and further an amount of Rs. 5,000/- to each of the respondents-workmen for the delay in payment of the gratuity, within a period of two months from the date of the order, the petitioners-Management filed the present writ petition. The respondents-workmen claim that they worked in the Unit of the petitioners – Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company near Tirupati, in different capacities. That at the time of entering into service, the management did not give them any appointment orders. That while working as such, the petitioners-management issued closure notice dated 20.11.2000, stating that it would come into effect w.e.f. 22.02.2001. The petitioners-management without paying the statutory benefits, closed the company, and therefore, they approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, who advised them to approach the Labour Court. Therefore, the petitioners filed petition in M.P. No.1 of 2002 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 praying to calculate the amounts due and payable to them and to pass appropriate orders directing the petitioners-Management to pay a total sum of Rs.47,48,524/- with interest thereon at 24% per annum and also to order payment of compensation of Rs.10,000/- each to the respondents-workmen for the delay in payment of the closure benefits such as gratuity, closure compensation, subsistence allowance and unseasonal allowance. The petitioners-management contested the petition by filing counter inter alia contending that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to compute the monetary benefits under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondents-workmen did not challenge the closure notice dated 20.11.2000. They denied that the petitioners were engaged on regular basis and were working with them since several years. The company is a seasonal industry and most of the workmen are engaged on casual basis. The respondents-workmen are not entitled to any compensation. The claim of the respondents-workmen was not maintainable even before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. So contending, they prayed for dismissal of the M.P. Before the Labour Court, the respondents-workmen examined respondent No.48-workman as W.W.1 on their behalf and marked Exs. W1 to @12, and on behalf of the petitioners-management, their Executive (Personnel), was examined as M.W.1, and documents Exs. M1 to M19 were marked. The Labour Court having considered the rival contentions in the light of the evidence adduced by the respective parties, held that the present M.P. is maintainable, that there were 72 workers, even though the petitioners-management admitted and produced attendance particulars of only 58 workers, that before closure they were not paid closure compensation, that they were entitled to be paid gratuity and other benefits. Holding so, the Labour Court directed the petitioners- management to pay gratuity to the respondents-workmen as per Rules with interest thereon at 12% per annum and Rs. 5,000/- to each of the respondents-workmen for the delay in making payment of the gratuity. The learned counsel for the petitioners-Management submitted that the petition filed by the respondents-workmen under Section 33- C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not maintainable, and as such, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is without jurisdiction. He submitted under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 the power of to adjudicate the claims of gratuity, is vested in the controlling authority, who shall adjudicate the same by conducting enquiry as envisaged thereunder. Hence, he submitted that the petitioners-Management are not entitled to pay any amounts claimed by the respondents-workmen, much less the amounts directed to be paid by the Labour Court. The learned counsel for the respondents-workmen, on the other hand, sought to sustain the impugned order. The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is a complete code in itself. The controlling authority constituted under Section 7 of the Act, is competent to adjudicate the claims arising under Section 4 of the Act, which shall be preceded by an enquiry. Since the power to adjudicate the gratuity claims is vested in the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the petition filed by the respondents- workmen before the Labour Court, under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not maintainable. Further it is the case of the petitioners-management that they closed the company duly following the procedure and after affixing notices, and that even though the petitioners-management admitted that only 58 persons were entitled to gratuity, and even though memorandum of compromise was entered into by them with the respondents-workmen, the Labour Court merely basing on the petition averments of the respondents-workmen, and without considering the said aspects, including the question whether the respondents-workmen worked for 120 days preceding six calender months prior to the notice, entitling them to claim the benefits, has passed the impugned order. Admittedly, a perusal of the impugned award would disclose that the Labour Court has not considered any of the above aspects, and merely relying on the petition averments, allowed the claim of the respondents-workmen, as indicated above. During the hearing of the writ petition, this Court considering the stand taken by the respondents-workmen in their vacate stay petition, and with a view to give quietus to the litigation, directed the petitioners- management counsel to pay some amounts to the respondents- workmen in full and final settlement of their claims. As directed, the learned counsel for the petitioners-management, has submitted a calculation memo, indicting the amounts to which the respondents- workmen are entitled to, which came to Rs.2,03,000/-, and agreed to pay the same towards gratuity, but despite adjourning the matter on several occasions, the counsel for the respondents-workmen refused to receive the same. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is one without jurisdiction, the same cannot be sustained, and the same is accordingly set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 16.12.2008 KSR/VGB