APHC010129312011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 23201/2011 Between: Management Of Sri Sivani Enterprises,srikakulam Dist ...PETITIONER AND Presiding Officer Indus Tribunal Vsp 4 Otrs and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ALAPATI ROHINI SRINIVAS MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following Order: The petitioner is challenging the award passed in M.P.No.5 of 2009 dated 20.01.2010, whereby the Labour Court directed respondent Nos.1 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs.1,56,275/- together with interest @ 6% per annum. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has never engaged the services of the 2nd respondent. However, the 2nd respondent approached the Labour Court and filed M.P.No.5 of 2009 seeking payment of wages, together with interest. The 2nd respondent had previously filed I.D.No.106 of 2005 challenging the termination of his services. The Labour Court HN, J W.P.No.23201_2011 2 set aside the order of termination and directed reinstatement. The Labour Court further directed the respondents therein to reinstate the 2nd respondent. 3. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed in M.P.No.5 of 2009, whereby the 2nd respondent herein sought payment of the wages that were due payable to him. The Labour Court passed an order dated 20.01.2010, directing the respondent Nos.1 to 4 therein to pay the back wages, together with interest. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner never engaged the services of the 2nd respondent and it was the 3rd respondent who had terminated the services of the 2nd respondent. It is also submitted that the services of the 2nd respondent were engaged by the 3rd respondent to work as a lorry driver on the lorry owned by the 3rd and 4th respondents. The petitioner only engaged the services of the 3rd and 4th respondents for transporting the gas cylinders from the stock point to the godown of the petitioner. There is no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. However, the Labour Court has lost sight of the same and granted a direction to the respondents therein including the petitioner to pay back wages. HN, J W.P.No.23201_2011 3 5. There is no representation for the respondents and no counter-affidavit is filed. 6. This Court is of the considered opinion that when there is no employee-employer relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, a direction to the petitioner, along with the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5, to pay the back wages cannot be sustained. It is also pertinent to mention that the 2nd respondent was under the employment of the 3rd and 4th respondents and the wages were paid by the 3rd and 4th respondents. 7. In such circumstances, the direction passed by the Labour court in M.P.No.5 of 2009, dated 20.01.2010 must be modified to the extent of directing respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 to pay the back wages. 8. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 22.01.2025 NKA HN, J W.P.No.23201_2011 4 49 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.23201 of 2011 Date: 22.01.2025 NKA