APHC010179712004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 18450 of 2004 Bench Sr.No:-15 [3506] K. Atcha Rao and others ...Petitioners Vs. Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and another ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioners: Mr. Josyula Bhaskara Rao Advocates for Respondents: GP for Labour, Mr. Kotha Naga Surya Rao – R2 CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 22nd November, 2025. ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Order dated 30.04.2004 passed in M.P.No.34/2002 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Visakhapatnam the 1strespondent herein and quash the same as illegal and ultra vires to the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also the mandatory provisions of the I.D. Act, 1947” 2. Petitioners claim to have worked in the 2nd respondent establishment from 1972 till 1992. The 2nd respondent had closed the Oil Mill in the year 1992. The petitioners claim that the said closure was without prior intimation to 2 CGRJ WP_18450_2004 the competent authority and that the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was not followed. 3. Petitioners claim that though the Oil Mill was running with profits, the management had decided to close the factory, with an assurance that it would be reopened after some time. Petitioners stated to have continuously followed up with the management for settlement of their claims for an amount of Rs.12,53,504/- towards gratuity, compensation, leave encashment and interest, as the same were not being considered, ultimately they were constrained to initiate proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by filing M.P.No.34 of 2002, before the 1st respondent i.e. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. 4. The said claim came to be contested by the 2nd respondent herein, on the count that the claims of all the petitioners had already been settled and in pursuance to the same, they had received the entire due amounts. Further, that the 2nd respondent had been defunct since 1992 and nearly after 10 years of closure of the factory, the present claim was instituted, therefore, the same required to be rejected. 5. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record and considering the respective pleas of the parties, ultimately found that petitioners had settled their claims and received the P.F. amounts. It came to the conclusion that the petition was filed only to cause inconvenience to the management and with 3 CGRJ WP_18450_2004 mala fide intention to extract money from the management and accordingly, rejected the M.P. Assailing the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 6. Heard Mr. Josyula Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Kotha Naga Surya Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim in toto and it ought to have seen that mere acceptance of the amounts payable towards P.F. claims would not disentitle them to claim for the other amounts. The Tribunal has therefore committed error in rejecting the claim. Further, with regard to the institution of the claim after a period of 10 years from the closure of the factory, it was contended that as the petitioners were engaging with the management for settlement of their claims, they were justified in instituting the claim, which aspect was not duly considered by the Tribunal, and therefore the order is liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent tried to sustain the order of the Tribunal, by contending that the evidence on record clearly established that the petitioners had received the claim amounts in full settlement and were therefore precluded from raising any further claims. Further, it was contended that there was no proper explanation forthcoming, for the inordinate delay of 10 years in institution of the claim and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim. 9. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions of the respective counsels. 4 CGRJ WP_18450_2004 10. Petitioners worked for the 2nd respondent from 1972 to 1992 on a piece- rate basis. The unit was closed in the year 1992. The claim came to be instituted in the year 2002, seeking an amount of Rs.12,53,504/- towards gratuity compensation, leave encashment and interest. The 2nd respondent took a stand that as factory sustained losses, it came to be closed and all claims of the petitioners were settled and accordingly they were paid, and the petitioners had even withdrawn the P.F. amount from the P.F. Department. The aforesaid aspect was admitted by the petitioners in their cross- examination. They have also admitted in the cross-examination that the management was paying to the petitioners on a piece-rate basis, once in a month, till closure of the mill. 11. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, rightly came to a conclusion that all the petitioners’ claims were settled as on the date of closure of the mill. The petitioners stated to have claimed certain other amounts, which they are entitled to, and nearly after 10 years, instituted the claim before the Tribunal. There is no piece of document or evidence on record to show that either they raised any such claim in 1992 or after receiving the P.F. amount. Even before the Tribunal, it was not stated that they had received the P.F. amount or that the claim was dehors the settlement of P.F. dues already made. 12. Further, there were also no reasons forthcoming for instituting the claim after 10 years, except for stating that the petitioners were continuously 5 CGRJ WP_18450_2004 engaging with the management for settlement of their claims, which clearly was unsubstantiated by any proper evidence. The Tribunal, after considering both these aspects, ultimately came to a conclusion that the petitioners’ claims had already been settled and that the claim instituted after 10 years was unfounded. 13. There is no valid reason to interfere with such findings of fact, nor has any fresh evidence been shown to take a view different from the one taken by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same hereby stands dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. SSN