APHC010648672018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 31388/2018 Between: M.V.Ranga Rao ...PETITIONER AND The Joint Commissioner Of Labour and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LABOUR (AP) 2. SYED KHADER MASTAN The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “…to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the order in P W M P No. 1 of 2017 dated 03.05.2018 on the file of lst respondent as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and provisions of Payment of Wages Act and consequently set aside the same and grant costs of the proceedings and pass…” 2. Heard Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Syed Khadar Mastan, learned Counsel for the unofficial respondent and Sri 2 Dr.VJPJ, W.P.No.31388/2018 Ch.Praveen, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing Sri Y. Balaji, learned Government Pleader for Labour for the respondent No.1. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent No.2 herein claiming to be an employee preferred P.W.M.P.Nos. 1 of 2017 before the learned Joint Commissioner of Labour to condone the delay in preferring the petition seeking an amount of Rs.4,18,436/- towards wage differences, overtime wages and Sunday & National Festival Holiday Wages from 2013. Learned Counsel would further submit that the respondent No.1 i.e., the Joint Commissioner of Labour is not the appropriate authority, the respondent No.2 has to file a petition before the authority under Minimum Wages Act but not under Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Learned Counsel would further submit that the petitioner has specifically filed their counter disputing the employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No.2. Such being the case, without deciding that point, the learned authority condoned the delay, that cannot be done. Learned Counsel would further submit that the delay is condoned to enable the respondent No.2 to pursue his claim on merits but not on the point that reason for delay is justifiable. Learned Counsel finally submits that the impugned order is not sustainable on facts and law. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Labour would submit that the impugned order does not warrant any interference of this Court. Learned Authority after exercising the discretion, rightly allowed the delay petition to examine the case on merits. The petitioner can raise all his contentions in the 3 Dr.VJPJ, W.P.No.31388/2018 main petition i.e., disputing the employer-employee relationship. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. Learned Counsel for the unofficial respondent would submit that the writ of mandamus is not maintainable since the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition assailing the impugned order passed by the learned authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The respondent No.2 is a workman. There is no dispute about the fact that he has approached the authority with a delay after the dispute is not resolved amicably before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Learned Counsel would further submit that learned authority exercised the discretion to condone the delay. There is nothing to interfere in the writ petition. The petitioner would have filed writ of certiorari. Learned Counsel finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in reply would submit that this Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction can mould the writ of mandamus to writ of certiorari. The impugned order is not sustainable since the delay was condoned on the point that the matter can be decided on merits but not after satisfying with the reasons for the delay. Learned Counsel for the petitioner finally prays to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order. 7. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 would show that the petitioner herein is the respondent before the learned Joint Commissioner, Guntur. The order itself shows that they have not submitted any arguments before the authority 4 Dr.VJPJ, W.P.No.31388/2018 after filing the counter. Ofcourse, in the counter they have raised several objections even regarding the employer-employee relationship between the parties. Learned Judge while passing the impugned order relying upon the judicial precedence rightly observed that when the delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a case would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Though the order is not in specific about the reasons for the causing of delay, but this Court is of the view that the learned Authority has rightly exercised the discretion since the petitioner before them is a workman. He has initially approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Since the dispute is not resolved amicably, approached the learned Authority ofcourse, with a delay. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the present case, viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. In that view, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The respondent No.2 claimed to be a workman and the dispute regarding the employer-employee relationship is left open to the authority to decide. The petitioner herein can raise their contentions during the course of enquiry before the authority. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ Dr. VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 21.04.2025 UPS 5 Dr.VJPJ, W.P.No.31388/2018 97 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.31388 of 2018 Dated.21.04.2025 UPS