IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH {f^ 11^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT ^ THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 20610 OF 2018 Between: Mr. Dilip Gadia, S/o.Makhalal Gadia, Aged about 58 years, Occ.Employer, M/s.Gadia Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Labour Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam, The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Akayapalem, Visakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh. 3. Mr.Panchadharala Gandhi, S to. Appanna, Age 52 years, Occ. Employee of M/s.Gadia Structurals Pvt. Ltd., D.No.19-7-33, Musalinaidu Palem, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam-44. 4. Mr.Sakala Lova Raju, S/o.Atchayyadora, Aged about 42 years, Occ. Employee of M/s.Gadia Structurals Pvt. Ltd., D.No.22-121-56, Dayal Nagar, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam-44. 5. Mr.Kandukuri Rama Rao, S/o.Krishna Rao, Aged about 41 years, Occ. Employee of M/s.Gadia Structurals Pvt. Ltd., D. No. 13-15-57, Sanjeevigiri Colony, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam-44. 6. Mr.Sakala Nageswara Rao, S/o.Apparao, Aged about 28 years, Occ. Employee of M/s.Gadia Structurals Pvt. Ltd., D.No.22-121-56, Dayal Nagar, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam-44. ...Respondents 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and call for the records and declare the order passed by the second respondent in I.A.No.iyi7 on the file of Authority Under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and Joint Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam dated 12.5.2018 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in P.W.No.1/17 on the file of Authority Under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and Joint Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam dated 12.5.2018 pending before the second respondent in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. PRUDHVI RAJ, REP. SRI TURAGA SAI SURYA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI SHAIK ABDUL RASHEED, AGP FOR LABOUR (AP) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 6: — The Court made the following: APHC010440322018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 20610/2018 Between: MR. DILIP GADIA, S/O.MAKHALAL GADIA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCC.EMPLOYER, M/S.GADIA STRUCTURALS PVT. LTD. PEDAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2.THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR, VISAKHAPATNAM, THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, AKAYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM ANDHRA PRADESH. 3.MR. PANCHADHARALA GANDHI, S / O.APPANNA, AGE 52 YEARS, OCC.EMPLOYEE OF M/S.GADIA STRUCTURALS PVT. LTD., D.N0.19-7-33, MUSALINAIDU PALEM, PEDAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATNAM-44. 4.MR. SAKALA LOVA RAJU, S/O.ATCHAYYADORA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC. EMPLOYEE OF M/S.GADIA STRUCTURALS PVT. LTD., D.NO.22-121-56, DAYAL NAGAR, PEDAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATNAM-44. 5.MR. KANDUKURI RAMA RAO, S/0.KRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. EMPLOYEE OF M/S.GADIA STRUCTURALS PVT. LTD., D.N0.13-15-57, SANJEEVIGIRI COLONY, GAJUWAKA, 2 VISAKHAPATNAM-44. 6. MR. SAKALA NAGESVVARA RAO, S/O.APPARAO, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC. EMPLOYEE OF M/S.GADIA STRUCTURALS PVT. LTD., D.NO.22-121-56, DAYAL NAGAR, PEDAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATNAM-44. ...RESPONDENT(S); Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.TURAGA SAI SURYA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR LABOUR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ of Certiorari and call for the records and declare the order passed by the second respondent in I.A. No. 1/17 on the file of Authority Under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and Joint Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam dated 12.5.2018 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law in the interest ofjustice.” 2. Heard Sri K.Prudhvi Raj, learned counsel representing Sri Turaga Sai Surya, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Shaik Abdul Rasheed learned Assistant Government Pleader for Labour. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that Respondent Nos.3 to 6 filed a petition before Respondent No.2 for payment of wages, and the same is not maintainable. Learned counsel would further submit that, the said petition has been filed with a delay of more than 300 days and that was allowed and against the same, the Petitioner preferred a writ petition in the year 2016, which is pending for consideration before a Coordinate Bench of 3 this Court. Learned counsel would further submit that they have filed I.A.No.1 of 2017 in P.W.No.1 of 2016 on the file of the Authority U/Sec.15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 by challenging the maintainability and jurisdiction of the Authority to decide it as a preliminary issue before deciding the main case and the same was dismissed vide the impugned order. Learned counsel would submit that, there is no dispute about the fact that Respondent Nos.3 to 6 were terminated from services. Such being the case, the main petition itself is not maintainable before the Joint Commissioner of Labour, who is the Authority under Payment of Wages Act. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Labour would submit that I 4. the impugned order does not require any interference of this Court, since the Authority has not passed any adverse orders except saying that the issue cannot be decided at the threshold and it requires evidence and enquiry. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the impugned order would show that, as rightly put by' the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the petition was not dismissed by touching the merits of the case. The learned Authority made an observation to the effect that, because of the 5. dispute on factual aspects of the matter, the Authority would further examine Accordingly, the said the main case, since the issue requires evidence. petition was dismissed. On a careful perusal of the impugned order, it is apposite to dismiss the present petition on the ground that a question which was raised before the Authority was touching the factual aspects of the matter. When it is a mixed 6. 4 question of fact and law, no one can decide it at the threshold without giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence to prove their respective contentions. 7. In that view, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shali be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions if any, pending shall stand closed. Sd/- J SAROJA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, C 1. One CC to SRI. TURAG.A SA! SURYA Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCS to GP FOR LABOUR (AP), High Court Of Andhra [OUT] Pradesh./ 3. Three CD Copies sree HIGH COURT DATED:24/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.20610 of 2018 DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS