WP/18088/2006 of A. Govindeswara Rao Vs Sankavaram Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit on 26 December 2006

ORAL ORDER:

These writ petitions are filed questioning the proceedings Endt.No.N.Dist. D/221/2006 and Endt. No.N.Dist. D/222/2006, dated31.1.2006 of the 4[th] respondent/ Labour Officer, Kakinada, EastGodavari District and for consequential direction to the 4[th]respondent/Labour Officer to entertain the applications filed against therespondents 1 to 3 questioning the order of the retrenchment of thepetitioner under the provisions of A.P. Shops and Establishments Act.

The petitioners who were working as Clerks in the respondentsociety were terminated by orders dated 25.2.2003. Questioning thesaid termination order, they filed applications under Section 50 of theA.P. Shops and Establishments Act before the 4[th] respondent-Labour Officer. The 4[th] respondent by the impugned proceedings in dated 31-1-2006 has returned the applications filed by the petitioners on theground that as per the instructions of the Commissioner of Labour,Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad vide memo No.11/19833/05, dt.24-11-2005, the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 is not applicableto the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies. Hence, the presentwrit petitions.

The issue involved in these writ petitions is “whether the clerksof the society are entitled to invoke the provisions of Shops and Establishment Act for the relief of terminal and other benefits during their course of employment before the authority”.

Though counter affidavit is filed denying the writ affidavitaverments, when the matter came up for hearing, the learnedGovernment Pleader for Labour appearing for the respondentssubmitted that as per the judgment of the this Court inA.Subramanyam Naidu and Others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[[1]]the petitioners come within the meaning of employees asdefined under the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 and theappropriate remedy for the petitioners is only to file applications underA.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988. He fairly conceded thatthe Labour Officer has erred in returning the applications.

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned GovernmentPleader for Labour. Both counsel agreed for disposal of the writpetition at the admission stage.

This court in A.Subramanyam Naidu and Others at para 34 of the Judgment held as follows:

“…The definition of workmen under IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 under section 2 (s) means, the personsemployed in a supervisory capacity drawing wagesexceeding one thousand, six hundred rupees per month andthe persons employed in a managerial or administrativecapacity are excluded within the definition of the workmen. But, as per the definition of Section 2 (8) of A.P. Shops andEstablishments Act, every staff of Industrial Establishmentalso comes within the purview of the employee. Therefore,even the Paid Secretaries who are the chief executives ofthe Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies comes withinthe meaning of employees as defined under the A.P. Shopsand Establishments Act, 1988.”

From the above judgment it is clear that the petitioners beingthe employees of the 1[st] respondent/society come within the meaningof employees as defined under the A.P. Shops and EstablishmentsAct, 1988 and the applications filed by them under Section 50 of A.P.S.E Act before the 4[th] respondent/Labour Officer, Kakinada aremaintainable. Hence, the impugned order dated 31.1.2006 returningthe applications of the petitioners is liable to be set aside andaccordingly set aside. The 4[th] respondent/Labour Officer is directed to receive the applicationsand consider the same in accordance with law.

The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. No costs.

_____________

(N.V.RAMANA,J)

DATE: 26.12.2006Grk/TVK

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

DATED: 26.12.2006

[1]2000 (5) ALD 682