WP/15716/2005 of M/s. Hindustan Antibiotics Limited, Vs D. Krishna Mohan, on 26 December 2005

ORDER:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

W.P.NO.15716 OF 2005

The Hindustan Antibiotics is again before this court in respect of a dispute it has with the 1[st] respondent. Now what is assailed is an order dated 21.6.2005 of the2[nd] appellate authority under the A.P. Shops and Establishment Act, 1988 (for short‘the Act’) and Deputy Commissioner of Labour Court, Guntur, directing thepetitioners to deposit in all, an amount of Rs.31,93,660-80 ps towards the full backwages and attendant benefits due and payable to the 1[st] respondent-medicalrepresentative in the appeal filed by the writ petitioner against the order of the 1[st]appellate authority dated 22.4.1998.

The 1[st] respondent was terminated from service by the writ petitioner-management assailing which after an interminable and meandering course oflitigation, the 1[st] respondent eventually filed an application for relief under the Act.The 1[st] appellate authority under the Act found the termination illegal and directedthe reinstatement of the 1[st] respondent herein to duty with full back wages andattendant benefits, whereagainst the second appeal was filed by the writ petitioner inwhich the order impugned came to be passed.

The 2[nd] appellate authority accepted the computation of back wages andattendant benefits submitted by the 1[st] respondent-workman and arrived at the figureof Rs.31,93,660.80 ps. The essential dispute on this aspect is as to whether theworkman/medical representative was entitled to the several revisions claimed byhim in the scale of pay from the date of his termination in the year 1979 till the date ofhis deemed superannuation. The 1[st] respondent claims several revisions of pay.The Management demurs and contends that there were only two revisions of payand its computation is on that basis. It is this dispute that is overshadowed thesubstantive dispute between the parties. Such litigative trivia are not be encouraged.Eventually, the substantive grievance between the petitioner and the 1[st] respondentwith regard to the validity of the termination of the 1[st] respondent from the service of the petitioner will have to be adjudicated. It is not the case of the 1[st] respondent thatthe writ petitioner-management is presently in a financial crisis or would be shortly.

In the aforesaid view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing thewrit petitioner to deposit in all, an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- after taking credit for theamount of Rs.2,54,240/- already deposited. The remaining amount of Rs.95,760/-(Rupees ninety five thousand seven hundred and sixty only) shall be deposited bythe writ petitioner to the credit of S.A.No.2 of 2005 pending before the 2[nd]respondent herein. Such deposit shall be made within a period of 2 weeks fromtoday and in default the writ petitioner shall be liable to deposit the entire amount asdirected in the order dated 21.6.2005 of the 2[nd] respondent. On such deposit by thewrit petitioner as ordained above and within the time stipulated, the 2[nd] respondentshall take up and adjudicate upon the Second Appeal expeditiously and concludeand pass judgment, in any event, within a period of 2 months from the date of receiptof a copy of this order. There shall however be no order as to costs.

Date: 26.12.2005

GODA RAGHURAM, J

-------------------------------

Note: CC in three days.BO. CVM