Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 756 (TS)

Christhu Jyothi Parish v. V. Govardhan Naik

2025-06-09

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2025
ORDER : SUREPALLI NANDA, J. Heard Sri Kasu Bal Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2. 2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “….to issue a Writ, order or direction more one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2 nd respondent in allowing the P.W.20 of 2013 dated 19-1-2021 to pay the differential amount of wages to the 1 st respondent for the period from 21-12-2011 to till his termination i.e. on 1-3-2013 in terms of the wages fixed by the Government vide GO No.73 LET & F Dept. dated 21-12-2011 is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the Petitioner No.1 is a private unaided school i.e., Christhu Jyothi Vidyalayam located at Christianpally, Mahabubnagar, and the Petitioner No.2 is a Reverend Priest overseeing a Church (Ashramam) located at Pillalamarri. The Respondent No.1 falsely claimed employment as a Watchman-cum- Attender in the school, based on fabricated documents. The Labour Court, in I.D. No. 31 of 2014, and the Criminal Court, in S.C.No. 122 of 2016, both rejected the Respondent No.1’s claim, holding that he was never employed by the Petitioners and had created false documents. The Respondent No.1 is attempting to misuse the legal process to claim benefits and unlawfully occupy Ashramam land. Despite clear findings in the earlier cases, the Respondent No.2 again initiated proceedings under the Payment of Wages Act in P.W.No. 20 of 2013, seeking wages from 1983 to 2013. Aggrieved by the arbitrary action of the respondents, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners placing reliance on the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of the present writ petition contends that the petitioners are entitled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of Section 17(1) of the Payments of Wages Act, 1936. 6. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of Section 17(1) of the Payments of Wages Act, 1936. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 submits that the petitioners have effective alternative remedy and therefore, this Court cannot decide the subject issue under this jurisdiction. 7. Section 17(1) of the Payments of Wages Act, 1936 is extracted hereunder: “17. Appeal (1) An appeal against an order dismissing either wholly or in part an application made under sub-section (2) of section 15, or against a direction made under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of that section] may be preferred, within thirty days of the date on which [the order or direction] was made, in a Presidency-town [* * * ] before the Court of Small Causes and elsewhere before the District Court.” 8. The Division Bench of Apex Court in a judgment dated 20.04.2021 reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771 in M/ s. Radhakrishnan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, referred to Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks (reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 ) and further the said view had been reiterated by a Full Bench of the Apex Court (3 Judges) in a judgment reported in (2021) SCC Online SC page 801 in Magadh Sugar and Energy Limited Vs. State of Bihar and Others dated 24.09.2021 and in the said judgment it is observed as under : 28. The principles of law which emerge are that: (i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well; (ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. The principles of law which emerge are that: (i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well; (ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person; (iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged; (iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law; (v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and (vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.” 9. This Court opines that the present case falls under clause (ii) (v) of the Judgment referred to and extracted above. 10. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 and, c) The view of the Apex Court in the Judgment (referred to and extracted above), The w rit petition is dismissed. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.