*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN + Writ Petition No.18285 of 2007 % Dated 30-10-2025 # Sri A.S.M. Co-op. Sugar Ltd., Pollapalli, rep. by its Managing Director (FAC) & R.D.O., Narsapur. ….. Petitioner Vs. $ 1. The Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Palkol & Ors. ....Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Y.N.Anjaneyacharyulu, learned counsel, representing Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy ^ Counsel for respondent No.2 : Asst. Govt. Pleader for Labour. <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred : 1. (2003) 5 SCC 163 = 2003 (II) LLJ 1078 2. Order, dt.21.03.2005, passed in WP No.4196 of 2005 (APHC) 2 CGR, J. W.P.No.18285 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Writ Petition No.18285 of 2007 Sri A.S.M. Co-op. Sugar Ltd., Pollapalli, rep. by its Managing Director (FAC) & R.D.O., Narsapur. ….. Petitioner Vs. $ 1. The Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Palkol & Ors. ....Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 30-10-2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN 1) Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? -Yes- 2) Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals -Yes- 3) Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? -Yes- _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN 3 CGR, J. W.P.No.18285 of 2007 4 CGR, J. W.P.No.18285 of 2007 APHC010247542007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 18285/2007 Between: 1. SRI. A.S.M.CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR LTD., POLLAPALLI, PALAKOLE MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR (FAC) & REVENUE DIVISONAL OFFICER, NARSAPUR ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE I CLASS PALKOL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. THE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT 1936, AND ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF LABOUR, ELURU 3. THE PALAKOL COOPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY WORKERS UNION, REGD.NO.G.506, PALAKOL, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, P. KRISHNA RAO, S/O. VENKATA REDDY GARU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,R/O.PALAKOL (POST MANDAL), WEST GODAVARI DIST., A.P., RESPONDENT NO.3 IMPLEADED AS PER C.O DATED 09/09/08 VIDE WPMP 30475/07. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the issuance of the Order, dated 13.7.2007, in STC.No.6 of 2003 of the 1st respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction 5 CGR, J. W.P.No.18285 of 2007 and also contrary to the order of this Hon`ble court dated 4.4.2002 in WP.No.18168 of 2001 and Section 12-A (9) of the APCS Act,1964 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LABOUR 2. NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY The Court made the following: 6 CGR, J. W.P.No.18285 of 2007 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Writ Petition No.18285 of 2007 ORDER: Present writ petition is filed seeking following relief: “… the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the issuance of the Order, dated 13.7.2007, in STC.No.6 of 2003 of the 1st respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and also contrary to the order of this Hon`ble court dated 4.4.2002 in WP.No.18168 of 2001 and Section 12-A (9) of the APCS Act,1964….” 2. Petitioner Society was formed under the provisions of the A.P. Co- operative Societies Act, 1965 (for short, “the APCS Act”). It has set up a sugar mill in West Godavari District and commissioned the same in the year 1963. However, due to various factors such as inadequate availability of cane, high cost of production, the vagaries in market, it continuously incurred losses. Even other co-operative sugar mills also were incurring losses at relevant time. Petitioner’s sugar mill, in particular, was closed during the year 1993 and declared lay-off on 07.09.1993. However, the same later came to be reopened, and by that time, it had accumulated losses of Rs.2082.45 Lakhs as against paid up share capital of Rs.171.28 Lakhs. Meanwhile, some of the workermen through the Union have filed P.W.C.No.22 of 1995 under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short, “the P.W. Act”), claiming 7 CGR, J. W.P.No.18285 of 2007 an amount of Rs.1,73,32,718/- towards the wages for the period of lock down and also lay off wages for 148 regular employees and 285 seasonal employees respectively. The authority under the P.W. Act passed Award, dated 11.03.1996, for Rs.1,35,11,551/- towards delayed wages and also wages for lay-off period. The Society preferred W.P. No.6336 of 1996 before this Court, in which the Award came to be suspended by order, dated 11.03.1996. Eventually, the same came to be dismissed by final order, dated 09.11.2000. Later, the Union preferred W.P.No.18168 of 2001 for implementation of the Award. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by judgment, dated 04.04.2002, providing that the amounts claimed by petitioner Union therein to be factored from the sale proceeds those may be received on account of sale of sugar mill, which is contemplated in pursuance to Section 12-A of the APCS Act and giving priority for the said amounts, while proceeds were disbursed to any other category of creditors. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has taken a policy decision to dis-invest and sell off the sugar mills, which were operating in losses and accordingly, has made a statutory amendment to Section 12-A of the APCS Act. The stakeholders have challenged the validity of the said provision and ultimately the same has been up-held by this Court. In furtherance to the said Scheme, the Government has issued G.O.Ms. No.25, Public Enterprises (II) Department, dated 21.05.2001, providing for special 8 CGR, J. W.P.No.18285 of 2007 compensation package to the employees, who were working in respective co-operative sugar factories, in particular, with respect to the petitioner’s Unit, Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.17, Public Enterprises (I) Department, dated 26.02.2003, whereby an amount of Rs.165.00 Lakhs came to be allocated by way of advance as loan to meet the payment of VRS benefits to the employees. It is stated that on account of sale of sugar mill of the petitioner through bidding process, it had received an amount of Rs.3.30 Crores and the same has been applied for discharging of the amounts payable to various creditors in accordance with the priority as provided under Section 12-A(9) of the APCS Act. The employee salaries and terminal benefits alone constituted for Rs.1,85,85,529/-, which were met from the sale proceeds and the VRS benefits of Rs.1,65,00,000/- were also paid, which were sourced from the Government by way of loan. Both these amounts put together exceeded the sale proceeds received. 3. Be that as it may, the 2nd respondent has instituted proceedings before 1st respondent vide STC No.6 of 2003 under Section 15(5) of the PW Act for recovering the amount awarded under P.W.C.No.22 of 1995. Despite contesting the matter and taking specific stand that the amounts, claimed, no longer were legally payable in view of the special compensation package envisaged under G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 21.05.2001, read with the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.18168 9 CGR, J. W.P.No.18285 of 2007 of 2001, the 1st respondent still allowed the petition and by impugned order, dated 13.07.2007, directed the petitioner herein to deposit the amount as claimed. Assailing the same, present writ petition is filed. 4. 2nd respondent filed detailed counter-affidavit inter alia stating that the proceedings initiated before the 1st respondent were strictly in accordance with Section 15(3) of the PW Act for recovery of the amount already ordered in PWC No.22 of 1995 and as the amount has already been crystalized and it is only a recovery proceeding, the liability cannot be avoided even if there is a special compensation package in place. It is further stated that the special compensation package envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 21.05.2001, which emanates on account of amendment brought into Section 12-A of the APCS Act has nothing to do with the past crystalized liability, therefore, the proceedings have been initiated and the 1st respondent has ordered for recovery. 5. Heard Sri Y.N.Anjaneyacharyulu, learned counsel, representing Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Labour appearing for 2nd respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by virtue of Section 12-A of the APCS Act, in particular, sub-section (9), once the workmen and employees are paid full and final amounts under special compensation package, they are not entitled to re-agitate any claims anterior to the said period and the same would by operation of law get 10 CGR, J. W.P.No.18285 of 2007 extinguished, therefore, inasmuch as the employees of petitioner, in whose favour there was an Award in PWC No.22 of 1995 have accepted the special compensation package without any protest or demur, impliedly they have waived or given up the claim for the amounts awarded earlier and even otherwise the said right to claim stands extinguished. He further contended that since the Union has already espoused the said cause by filing W.P.No.18168 of 2001 and invited the judgment, dated 04.04.2002, by which it was specifically directed that their claim has to be discharged from and out of the sale proceeds, at the time of disbursal by the Registrar of the Society, the amounts under award passed in WPC No.22 of 1995 cannot be recovered in any other manner than what has been provided above, much less by recovery proceedings under Section 15(5) of the PW Act, as ordered in the impugned proceedings. To buttress aforesaid arguments, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in A.K. Bindal v. Union of India1 and order of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in A. Satyanarayana Reddy v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur2, confirmed by Division Bench in W.A.No.820 of 2005. 7. Leaned Assistant Government Pleader for Labour appearing for 2nd respondent tried to sustain the order under challenge by contending 1 (2003) 5 SCC 163 = 2003 (II) LLJ 1078 2 Order, dt.21.03.2005, passed in WP No.4196 of 2005 (APHC) 11 CGR, J. W.P.No.18285 of 2007 that the amounts those have been directed to be recovered were not subject matter of special compensation package, since the liability has already been determined even prior to the introduction of Section 12-A of the APCS Act and formulation of special compensation package scheme under G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 21.05.2001, the petitioner cannot deny to pay the same, therefore, rightly, the 1st respondent directed for recovery. He further contended that the machinery provisions of PW Act, in particular, recovery proceedings are independent of provisions of APCS Act, which operate in different spheres, therefore, merely because a special compensation package has been applied and certain benefits have been extended under the said Scheme to the members/ employees of petitioner, the same ipso facto would not disentitle them to seek recovery of the crystalized liability under the provisions of the PW Act. 8. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions of both the learned counsels. 9. The Palakol Cooperative Sugar Factory Workers Union (for short, “the Union”) has been impleaded as party respondent to the writ petition by order, dated 09.09.2008. None appears for the Union. However, in W.V.M.P.No.2927 of 2008, the said respondent has filed affidavit opposing the contents of writ petition and also sought to vacate the interim order granted in the writ petition, which was that of staying 12 CGR, J. W.P.No.18285 of 2007 impugned judgment. In the said affidavit, it is stated that the members of Union were not aware of disbursal of the sale proceeds nor they were issued any notice by either Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioner or Registrar of Societies to make any claim for applying priority in terms of Section 12-A of the APCS Act, therefore, they were denied the legitimate claims which were already crystalized. They have also reserved right to file a detailed counter-affidavit after ordering impleadment, however, no such counter affidavit has been filed. 10. The relationship between members of implead respondents and the writ petitioner to be that of employees and employer is not in dispute. The petitioner Society operated sugar mill and due to continuous losses sustained, it had closed down the operations in the year 1993. A claim later came to be laid for the unpaid wages during the period from 28.09.1993 to 07.02.1994 and lay-off wages from 07.09.1993 to 27.09.1993 and from 08.02.1994 to 30.09.1995 for 148 regular employees and retaining allowances for the period from 13.02.1993 to 30.09.1995 for 285 seasonal employees. The claim was laid under the provisions of PW Act and eventually, by Award, dated 11.03.1996, an amount of Rs.1,35,11,551/- came to be awarded. Challenge to the said Award at the instance of petitioner, resulted futile as writ petition came to be dismissed on 09.11.2000. Seeking implementation of the Award, W.P.No.18168 of 2001 came to be preferred before this Court. The 13 CGR, J. W.P.No.18285 of 2007 same has been disposed by judgment, dated 04.04.2002. It is opt to extract the operative portion of the said judgment and it reads as follows: “If the members of the petitioner Union are entitled to any payment, they have to make their claim through the 3rd respondent and the same will be forwarded to the Registrar as per the Scheme formulated under Section 12-A of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and before disbursing the sale proceeds, the members of the petitioner union should also be given notice to represent their claim and they shall be paid on priority basis according to the scheme formulated under Section 12-A of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.” 11. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 21.05.2001, providing for special compensation package for employees, who are affected in the course of privatisation of State Level Public Enterprises. The said special compensation package envisaged that the employees shall give consent for accepting the package as offered in case the new entity does not wish or intend to continue them. Later, by advent of introduction of Section 12-A to the APCS Act, all the cooperative sugar factories which are running in losses in the State, were decided to be privatized by sale of the assets and liabilities. Even the petitioner Mill, which admittedly was dealing under severe financial crisis and had accumulated losses of more than Rs.282.45 Lakhs, was also privatized and accordingly, the assets and liabilities came to be acquired by a private entity through bidding process. Insofar as the employees working were concerned, they were extended the benefit of 14 CGR, J. W.P.No.18285 of 2007 special compensation package in terms of G.O.Ms.25, dated 21.05.2001. All employees have accepted the special compensation package (VRS) in terms of aforesaid G.O., and they have received the terminal benefits without any demur or protest. This would acquire considerable significance in deciding the present writ petition. Though all of them have received the amounts under aforesaid special compensation package, still continue to pursue the claim for unpaid wages during duty and lay-off wages, which were earlier determined in WPC No.22 of 1995. Precisely, considering and keeping in view the subsequent legislative intervention by way of Section 12-A of the APCS Act and the policy of Government providing for special compensation package under G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 21.05.2001, this Court in W.P. No.18168 of 2001 passed aforesaid orders as extracted above. 12. Be that as it may, without intervention of either employees or its Union, the 2nd respondent independently had initiated proceedings under Section 15(5) of the PW Act in STC No.6 of 2003 for recovery of the amount as awarded earlier. The writ petitioner contested the proceedings. However, by impugned order, the recovery has been ordered. Perusal of order goes to show that neither Union nor employees of sugar mill were made parties to the said proceedings. Entire case revolves around the implementation of the Award, dated 11.03.1996. Initially the Union had filed W.P.No.18168 of 2001 before 15 CGR, J. W.P.No.18285 of 2007 this Court seeking for enforcement of the Award. This Court considering the subsequent developments, in particular, the steps initiated by the Registrar for disposal of assets of the petitioner in exercise of powers under Section 12-A of the APCS Act and the special compensation package envisaged under G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 21.05.2001, has consciously relegated the Union to lay its claim before the Registrar at the time of disbursal of sale proceeds. It is also directed that the Registrar should give notice to the Union before the amounts were disbursed and the claim be given priority in terms of provisions of Section 12-A of the APCS Act. In the implead petition filed by Union, it is stated that no such notice was ever issued to it by the Director and Commissioner of Sugar Mills, nor the Registrar of Societies. 13. Be that as it may, since the assets of the petitioner have already been disposed and fetched an amount of Rs.330 Lakhs and the claims of employees have already been settled as stated by petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,85,85,529/-, besides, settling VRS benefits paid out of the loan secured from State Government for an amount of Rs.165.00 Lakhs, which substantially far exceeded the sale proceeds recovered, even assuming that their claim still subsists, and required to be prioritized in terms of Section 12-A (9) of the APCS Act, in the absence of any further amounts available, even under the provisions of the APCS Act, the subject claims amounts to duly discharged. That apart, since the 16 CGR, J. W.P.No.18285 of 2007 liability of payment of wages, which stated to have been already crystalized emanates from the provisions of the PW Act, the said liability would be subject to the disbursal priority as provided under Section 12- A(9) of the APCS Act from out of the sale proceeds. 14. Section 12-A(9) of the AP CS Act reads as under: “12-A. Special provisions in respect of certain Societies:— (1) …. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) The proceeds realised from the transfer of assets or assets and liabilities, in whole or in part, of the society concerned, shall be applied in discharge of the liabilities of such society in the following order of priority, namely: (i) all expenses incurred for preservation and protection of the assets; (ii) (a) dues payable to workmen and employees; (b) debts payable to secured creditors according to their rights and priorities inter se; (c) dues payable to provident fund or other authorities which are protected under a statute by a charge on the assets; (iii) debts payable to ordinary creditors; (iv) share capital contributed by the members of the society: Provided that the cases covered under Category (i) shall have precedence over all other Categories, Category (ii) shall have precedence over Categories (iii) and (iv) and Category (iii) shall have precedence over Category (iv): Provided further that the debts specified in each of the Categories shall rank equally and be paid in full, but in the event of the amount being insufficient to meet such debts, they shall abate in equal proportions and be paid accordingly: Provided also that the question of discharging any liability with regard to a debt specified in a lower Category shall arise only if a surplus fund is left after meeting all the liabilities specified in the immediately higher Category. …..” 17 CGR, J. W.P.No.18285 of 2007 15. Section 12-A(9) of the APCS Act provides for priority in discharge of liabilities of the Societies and includes payment of dues to workmen and employees. Of course, it stands second in priority after sub-clause (9)(i), which provided for expenses incurred for preservation and protection of assets. The expression used “dues payable to workmen and employees” would definitely include all the payments that they were entitled to as on the date of settlement. In the present case, the employees have been settled by applying special compensation package. Further, it is not in dispute that the payments made towards the dues payable to workmen and employees were given priority as above from out of the sale proceeds. Once the dues payable are assessed and the same have been paid to the employees and that they received without any protest or demur, it clearly amounts to accepting the amounts to be full and final satisfaction. There is nothing on record to show that the employees have protested while accepting the special compensation package. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner even otherwise has tried to contend that since the employees or their Union have not protested to at the time of receiving the special compensation package, they are not entitled to re-agitate any claims qua the Society, also has some force. 18 CGR, J. W.P.No.18285 of 2007 17. In A.K.Bindal1 slightly similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Relevant observations made therein read as under: “32. The units of the Companies have already suspended their operations quite some time back and as on date no unit is functioning nor is any production being made. There is also no denial of the fact that the Companies have suffered huge losses and salaries of the employees who were practically doing no work have been paid by the Government for a considerably long period. The employees accepted VRS with their eyes open without making any kind of protest regarding their past rights based upon revision of pay scale from 1-1-1992. 33. The Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) which is sometimes called Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) is introduced by companies and industrial establishments in order to reduce the surplus staff and to bring in financial efficiency. The office memorandum dated 5-5-2000 issued by the Government of India provided that for sick and unviable units, the VRS package of the Department of Heavy Industry will be adopted. Under this Scheme an employee is entitled to an ex gratia payment equivalent to 45 days' emoluments (pay + DA) for each completed year of service or the monthly emoluments at the time of retirement multiplied by the balance months of service left before the normal date of retirement, whichever is less. This is in addition to terminal benefits. The Government was conscious about the fact that the pay scales of some of the PSUs had not been revised with effect from 1-1-1992 and therefore it has provided adequate compensation in that regard in the second VRS which was announced for all Central public sector undertakings on 6-11-2001. Clause (a) of the Scheme reads as under: (a) Ex gratia payment in respect of employees on pay scales at 1-1-1987 and 1-1-1992 levels, computed on their existing pay scales in accordance with the extant Scheme, shall be increased by 100% and 50% respectively. 34. This shows that a considerable amount is to be paid to an employee ex gratia besides the terminal benefits in case he opts for voluntary retirement under the Scheme and his option is accepted. The amount is paid not for doing any work or rendering any service. It is paid in lieu of the employee himself leaving the services of the company or the industrial establishment and foregoing all his claims or rights in the same. It is a package deal of give and take. That is why in the business 19 CGR, J. W.P.No.18285 of 2007 world it is known as “golden handshake”. The main purpose of paying this amount is to bring about a complete cessation of the jural relationship between the employer and the employee. After the amount is paid and the employee ceases to be under the employment of the company or the undertaking, he leaves with all his rights and there is no question of his again agitating for any kind of his past rights with his erstwhile employer including making any claim with regard to enhancement of pay scale for an earlier period. If the employee is still permitted to raise a grievance regarding enhancement of pay scale from a retrospective date, even after he has opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and has accepted the amount paid to him, the whole purpose of introducing the Scheme would be totally frustrated.” 18. The aforesaid view has been later followed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4196 of 2005. Even that was also a case dealing with claims of employees relating to laid-off period, who had later settled under special compensation scheme extended by Nagarjuna Cooperative Sugars Limited. This Court considering the special compensation package extended under G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 21.05.2001, and also the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, has ultimately held as follows: “It is settled law that when there is error of law appearing on the face of the record or the findings are not based upon misinterpretation of law or the findings are perverse or illegal, then only this court can interfere with the matter. Relying upon the decisions of the apex court and the Bombay High Court cited above, the learned tribunal came to the conclusion that once the employees opt for voluntary retirement scheme and receive all the benefits, they are not entitled to agitate for any right to claim any benefits existed prior to their voluntary retirement and hence rejected the petition. Since the exercise of jurisdiction is involved, the tribunal has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in rejecting the petition since the petitioners do not come within the meaning of workmen under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act….” 20 CGR, J. W.P.No.18285 of 2007 19. The said view expressed has later been confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.820 of 2005. 20. Since the Hon’ble Apex Court in A.K. Bindal1, which later came to be followed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, as well as confirmed by Division Bench dealing with more or less similar circumstances, have held that once having accepted the voluntary retirement scheme benefits and received the amounts, one cannot again re-agitate any claims for past period qua employer, even in the present case, the claims those are being now sought to be recovered from the petitioner, since have merged into the dues payable as on the date of settlement, and that the settlement has been accepted, question of employees once again claiming for recovery, does not arise and rather such claims impliedly stands extinguished. 21. No doubt, upon adjudication under the provisions of PW Act, the amount payable has been determined and the same is sought to be enforced for the purpose of recovery, question of recovering said amounts would arise only in case of the Society being financially sound and in business. Now, by virtue of sale of assets of the Society, the proceeds of sale are required to be disbursed strictly in accordance with Section 12-A(9) of the APCS Act. Section 12-A(9)(ii)(b) of the APCS Act provided priority to the dues of employees and workmen, even the amounts payable under the PW Act would also be considered to be 21 CGR, J. W.P.No.18285 of 2007 falling within the meaning of dues as envisaged under the aforesaid provision. All and any past dues crystalized and future prospects of the employees have been considered for the purpose of determining special compensation package, there remains nothing out side the scheme to re-agitate once again. The employees being very much aware of their right to recovery under the PW Act, since have consciously decided to accept the special compensation package, much less without demur or protest, have not only impliedly waived their right to such amounts even otherwise the said claims clearly got embodied into dues, which they were entitled to as on the date of determination of the special compensation package. 22. In view of the aforementioned legal position and considering that 1st respondent - Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakol, West Godavari District, has misdirected itself in not appreciating the legislative mandate under Section 12-A of the APCS Act, and also the special compensation package envisaged under G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 21.05.2001, which ultimately came to be succinctly considered by this Court in W.P.No.18168 of 2001 in holding that the Union was entitled to merely lay claim for the amounts under Award from out of the sale proceeds and having regard to the fact that the sale proceeds realized were far less than the payments already made to the workmen, this 22 CGR, J. W.P.No.18285 of 2007 Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions arrived at by the 1st respondent cannot be sustained. 23. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any in this case, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:30.10.2025. Note: L.R. copy to be marked. B/O cs