Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1218 (AP)

THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR v. P HUSSAIN

2022-11-07

B.S.BHANUMATHI

body2022
ORDER : 1. This revision petition, under Section 115 CPC, is preferred against the docket order, dated 20.01.2020, passed in E.P.No.14 of 2002 in I.D.No.121 of 1991 on the file of the Court of the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapuramu, ordering to attach the movables of the amended EP schedule of the 1st respondent, as ordered on 08.10.2018. 2. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/respondents/APSPDCL and Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner. 3. The history and the chronology of events leading to filing of this revision may briefly be stated, hereunder: The services of the respondent/petitioner were engaged with the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, Anantapur Operation circle (‘APSEB’), through an agency, for the purpose of billing and accounting work. While so, on account of computerization, by order, dated 28.02.1991, the services of the petitioner along with some others were terminated alleging that they have become surplus. Challenging the termination orders passed against the workmen, respondent/petitioner along with some others preferred I.D.Nos.120 of 1991 to 124 of 1991 under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on the file of the Court of the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, (‘Tribunal’) seeking to set aside the order of termination as illegal and to reinstate them into service with full back wages. M.P.Nos.9 of 1991 to 13 of 1991 were also filed under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act requesting for payment of certain amounts. The contention of the management before the Tribunal was that there was no relationship of employer and employee. By common award/order, dated 25.04.1996, the Tribunal directed the revision petitioners to reinstate the workmen into service with continuity of service. The respondent/petitioner along with other workmen was also held entitled for the amounts claimed in each miscellaneous petition. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the APSEB preferred W.P.Nos.24052 to 24058 & 24060 of 1996 before the Hyderabad High Court. By common order, dated 10.03.1998, all the writ petitions were dismissed confirming the award of the Tribunal. The writ appeals filed against the common order, dated 10.03.1998, were also dismissed, by order, dated 18.07.2000. Review W.A.M.P.No.891 of 2001 was also dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent/petitioner and other workmen filed E.P.Nos.13 to 16 of 2003 on the file of the Tribunal to implement the award. The writ appeals filed against the common order, dated 10.03.1998, were also dismissed, by order, dated 18.07.2000. Review W.A.M.P.No.891 of 2001 was also dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent/petitioner and other workmen filed E.P.Nos.13 to 16 of 2003 on the file of the Tribunal to implement the award. By common order, dated 26.09.2003, the Tribunal directed the revision petitioners herein to pay the amounts mentioned in the execution petition within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order failing which the properties mentioned in the execution petition shall be attached. The revision petitioners filed W.P.No.23256 of 2003, with a prayer to quash the award of the Tribunal in E.P.No.16 of 2002 in I.D.No.123 of 1991. The said writ petition was dismissed and in the light of the order passed in W.P.No.23256 of 2003, the other writ petitions in W.P.Nos.23257, 23258 and 23259 of 2003 to quash the award of the Tribunal in E.P.Nos.13, 14 & 15 of 2002 were also dismissed. Challenging the order passed in W.P.Nos.23256, 23257, 23258 and 23259 of 2003, writ appeals in W.A.Nos.2178, 2180, 2181 & 2182 of 2003 were filed. A Division Bench of the High Court, by common judgment, dismissed the writ appeals. The Division Bench observed that being an instrumentality of the State, the revision petitioners are indulging in endless litigation and directed to comply with the order of the Tribunal and extended time by two months for compliance failing which the execution proceedings shall go on. Thereafter, the revision petitioners herein filed execution application in E.A.No.8 of 2004 in E.P.No.13 of 2002 in ID Nos.120 of 1991 to 124 of 1991 seeking clarification with regard to the mode of implementation of the award on the ground that no corresponding posts are available in the petitioners’ organization. By order, dated 21.09.2004, the Tribunal clarified that the respondent/ petitioner is entitled to all the benefits as per the award and directed to report compliance within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. The Tribunal directed the revision petitioners herein to pass an order of regularization of all the decree holders within one month in execution petitions in E.P.Nos.13 to 16 of 2002 and E.P.No.402 of 2003, dated 14.09.2009. The Tribunal directed the revision petitioners herein to pass an order of regularization of all the decree holders within one month in execution petitions in E.P.Nos.13 to 16 of 2002 and E.P.No.402 of 2003, dated 14.09.2009. By common order dated 23.09.2009, passed in E.P.No.18 of 2005 and batch, the revision petitioners are further directed to pay the amount within one month from the date of the order. By memo, dated 28.01.2005, APSEB appointed the respondent/petitioner and other workmen as Senior Assistant. Questioning the validity and legal sustainability of the common order, dated 23.09.2009, passed in M.P.Nos.18 to 22 of 2012, W.P.Nos.24928, 24961, 25007 and 25009 of 2010 were filed and by common order, dated 28.01.2016, all the writ petitions were dismissed. The revision petitioners again filed W.P.Nos.2807, 2832, 2833, 2889 & 2892 of 2011 challenging common order, dated 14.09.2009, passed in E.P.Nos.13 to 16 of 2002 and 402 of 2003. The said writ petitions were dismissed by common order, dated 04.07.2017, imposing costs of Rs.5,000/-in each of the writ petition payable to the workmen. Thereafter, E.P.No.13 of 2002 in I.D.No.120 of 1991 and batch were filed under Order XXI Rule 43 CPC read with 11(b) of the Act for implementation of the award of the Tribunal in terms of the amended EP schedule. The Tribunal, by common order dated 08.10.2018, ordered attachment of the movables of the amended EP schedule on payment of process by 22.10.2018. 4. At this stage, the revision petitioners herein filed C.R.P.Nos.6167, 6168, 6169, 6170 & 6171 of 2018 on the file of this High Court challenging the order, dated 08.10.2018, passed in E.P.No.13 of 2002 and batch. All these revisions were dismissed as not pressed. 5. In the aforesaid background facts, the revision petitioners filed this revision petition challenging the order, dated 20.01.2020, passed in E.P.No.14 of 2002 in I.D.No.121 of 1991 on the file of the Tribunal. 6. For better appreciation, the impugned docket order, dated 20.01.2020, passed by the Tribunal is reproduced hereunder: “This Court on 08.10.2018 ordered for attachment of movables to amend the E.P schedule properties on payment of process and posted to 22-10-2018. Questioning the above order the judgment debtors filed revision before the Hon’ble High Court in C.R.P.No.6169/2018. The Hon’ble High Court initially was pleased to grant stay in all the five Execution Petitions and the stay was extended from time to time. Questioning the above order the judgment debtors filed revision before the Hon’ble High Court in C.R.P.No.6169/2018. The Hon’ble High Court initially was pleased to grant stay in all the five Execution Petitions and the stay was extended from time to time. Ultimately, on 01-05-2019 the Hon’ble High Court granted extension of the stay till 10-06-2019 with a condition that on that on that day if the petitioner therein failed to advance the arguments the stay order would be vacated automatically. Eventually, on 12-06-2019, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the C.R.P No.6169/2018 as the petitioner therein not pressed the C.R.P. Earlier, questioning the Common Order passed by this Court in this I.D the judgment debtor herein filed W.P.No.2807/2011 and batch, but the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to dismiss the writ petition holding that the petitioners are not entitled for regularization of their services with effect from the date of their joining. As seen from the record, judgment debtors herein have not preferred appeal against the above said writ petition order. Thus, the orders in the above writ petition have become final. Since the Hon’ble High Court in C.R.P.No.6169/2018 dt.12.06.2019 dismissed the C.R.P as not pressed by the petitioner therein, the order passed by this Tribunal dated 08-10-2018 has become enforceable. As seen from the record, the petitioners have not yet paid batta, pursuant to the order of attachment. Therefore, for payment of batta/process to attach the movables of amended E.P schedule of Respondent No.1 as orders on 08-10-2018, at request call on 30-01-2020.” 7. It is mainly contended by the revision petitioners that the execution Court has not considered the fact that the decree has been duly complied, as per letter dated 15.06.2019, and also as informed vide memo, dated 10.09.2019, and has just continued the execution proceedings from a stage prior to this letter, just because the earlier revision has been withdrawn. In this regard, it is contended that the earlier revision petition has been withdrawn as the orders have been duly complied, and therefore, the execution Court cannot ignore the compliance and proceed to execute the warrant as it was earlier ordered. 8. In this regard, it is contended that the earlier revision petition has been withdrawn as the orders have been duly complied, and therefore, the execution Court cannot ignore the compliance and proceed to execute the warrant as it was earlier ordered. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that so called action is not due compliance of the decree under execution directing reinstatement of DHr into service with continuity of service, since the regularization is to take effect only from 29.08.2005, but not from the date of initial entry into service in 1991. He further submitted that it is not even regularization what is required as per the award of the Tribunal and it is only a reinstatement with continuity of service which is not done by the JDrs, and thus, the executing Court has rightly proceeded, because the order which was challenged in the revision remained valid after withdrawing the revision filed against it. 9. As can be seen from the record, the order, dated 08.10.2018, passed by the Tribunal in E.P.No.14 of 2002 is exhaustive and the same has been challenged in C.R.P.No.6169 of 2018 and the same has been not pressed and thus it was dismissed on 12.06.2019. But according to the JDrs, subsequent to dismissal of the revision, they have informed to the execution Court vide memo dated 10.09.2019, that the decree has been duly complied, but the same has not been discussed by the execution Court. As such, it is relevant to refer the memo herein. This memo has been issued by the office of the Superintending Engineer, Operation, Anantapuramu, which reads as under: “ It is to inform that, as per the instructions of Corporate Office, Tirupati vide Memo dated 06-06-2019 (ref 2), Sri P. Hussain, Senior Assistant (Rtd.) who filed E.P No.14/2002 in I.D.Nos.120/1991 & batch before the Hon’ble Labour Court, Anantapuramu, is entitled for regularization of services with effect from 25-04-1996 i.e., date of award for the pensionary benefits only. All other attendant benefits are to be extended from the date of his appointment into service on regular time scale i.e., 10-02-2005 F.N. Further, he is eligible for pensionary service from non-pensionary service with effect from 25-04-1996 i.e., from the date of award. The procedure for conversion of service from non-pensionary service to pensionary service is under process and same will be implemented in due course.” 10. The procedure for conversion of service from non-pensionary service to pensionary service is under process and same will be implemented in due course.” 10. Whereas the execution Court has not at all discussed anything about what is stated in the memo is due compliance of the decree in execution or not. It merely stated that since the Hon’ble High Court in C.R.P.No.6169 of 2018, dated 12.06.2019, dismissed the revision as not pressed by the petitioners therein, the order passed by the Tribunal dated 08.10.2018, has become enforceable and that the petitioners have not yet paid batta, pursuant to the order of attachment, and therefore, the case is posted to 30.01.2020 for payment of batta/process to attach movables of the amended E.P schedule of the 1st respondent as ordered on 08.10.2018. In its order, no reference even is made to the memo dated 10.09.2019. It may accept or reject the reported compliance as sufficient to discharge the liability under the decree in execution. Since the execution Court has totally left the matter unattended, an error is apparent on the face of the record. This Court, in a revision, before the execution Court takes any decision, cannot go into the question whether the decree under execution has been duly satisfied or not. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside with a direction to the execution Court to decide whether the decree has been fully satisfied or not and thereafter proceed further, if it holds that the decree has not been satisfied. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 20.01.2020, passed in E.P.No.14 of 2002 in I.D.No.121 of 1991 on the file of the Labour Court, Anantapuramu. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.