APHC010224482004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 19149 of 2004 Bench Sr.No:-14 [3506] M. Rajulamma and others ...Petitioners Vs. Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court Vizag and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Josyula Bhaskara Rao Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): 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.35/2002 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 provisons 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 the competent authority and that the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was not followed. 2 CGRJ WP_19149_2004 3. Further they 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, having waited for the factory to be reopened, maintained restraint in espousing their right. Ultimately, having realized that the Oil Mill was not going to be reopened, they preferred an M.P.No.35 of 2002, before the 1st respondent i.e. Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, claiming an amount of Rs.7,87,919/- towards arrears of gratuity, compensation, encashment of leave, and interest. The said claim has been instituted under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. The claim came to be opposed by the 2nd respondent by filing a counter. The management had denied that there exists an employer-employee relationship and that petitioners were workmen within the meaning of the Act and further it was also pleaded that there were no bona fides in the claim, as admittedly, the claim came to be instituted after 10 years of the closure of the factory, even according to the petitioners. 5. In support of the claim, the petitioners themselves got examined as WW1 to WW10 and marked exhibits Ex.W1 and Ex.W2 and on behalf of the 2nd respondent, MW1 came to be examined and no documents were marked. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, has ultimately came to the conclusion that the petitioners could not establish that they were engaged to work with the 2nd respondent-Oil Mill 3 CGRJ WP_19149_2004 and also that the claim since being instituted nearly after 10 years, without proper explanation, was only to cause inconvenience to the 2nd respondent for making undue gain and accordingly rejected the M.P. Assailing the same, 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 contend that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence, WW1 in particular and the oral and documentary evidence of the petitioners, in proper perspective, which clearly established that they were working with the 2nd respondent and further that the Tribunal has committed an error in considering that mere institution of claim after 10 years would disentitle the petitioners to make such a claim, inasmuch as there was no such bar in the statute, at the time of disposal of the M.P. in that regard, therefore, the order clearly suffers from illegality and hence needs to be set aside and the claim be allowed accordingly. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondent-Oil Mill, however, tried to support the order passed by the Tribunal by contending that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that there was no employer- employee relationship and as the claim was instituted after 10 years, the same was unsustainable. He further contended that since the claim was instituted by the petitioners, it was for them to establish that there was employer-employee relationship and the petitioners were required to have reasonably pleaded the 4 CGRJ WP_19149_2004 causes for such delay in instituting the claim, in the absence of the same, the findings recorded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse in any manner. 9. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions of the respective counsels. 10. The petitioners claim to have worked with the 2nd respondent from 1972 to 1992. It was stated that the 2nd respondent had closed down the unit in the year 1992. In order to establish that petitioners did work with the 2nd respondent during the aforesaid period, they had spoken for themselves besides marking Exhibits Ex.W1 and Ex.W2. Exhibits, Ex.W1 and Ex.W2 are the documents which were stated to have been issued by the Chairperson of Municipal Council, Tuni and Sarpanch of Chepuru Gram Panchayat respectively. 11. The Tribunal, while considering the aforesaid evidence, has recorded a finding that both these material documents were not praiseworthy, inasmuch as the scribe of these documents and the writings of the petition, filed before it, appeared to be one and the same. Therefore, no credence was given to the same. 12. Even otherwise, the aspect as to whether petitioners were engaged with 2nd respondent or not, can only be established by any of the documents which were issued by the 2nd respondent itself during the course of employment, such as, wage registers, payment details, bank details, etc. In the absence of 5 CGRJ WP_19149_2004 producing any of such evidence, solely basing on Exhibits, Ex.W1 and Ex.W2, it cannot be concluded that they did work with 2nd respondent. Aforesaid finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, in the opinion of this Court does not suffer from any perversity. 13. Further, the Tribunal has also tried to rescind the issue by considering that in another application i.e. M.P.No.34 of 2002, which was instituted by similarly situated persons, claiming to be engaged by 2nd respondent, were enrolled with P.F. department. The Tribunal has justified the aforesaid conclusion on the count that unlike the petitioners in M.P.No.34 of 2002, petitioners in the present case were not figuring in the P.F. records, therefore, they were never engaged with 2nd respondent. 14. Finally, coming to the aspect of belated filing of claim, after a gap of 10 years from the closure of the factory, and in the absence of any evidence on record to show that petitioners had been engaging with 2nd respondent- management for ascertaining their due, much less gratuity, compensation, leave encashment, etc., as claimed in the present Writ Petition, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that no justification or valid reasons were shown to condone such inordinate delay. 15. 15. Though learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the statute does not provide for any specific period of limitation for preferring such claims, even if the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the claim on that count, this Court is not persuaded with the aforesaid submission for the reason that, even 6 CGRJ WP_19149_2004 in the absence of any specific period of limitation being prescribed under the statute, the petitioners were required to in the least demonstrate before the Tribunal as to what effective steps were undertaken before the institution of the claim causing such inordinate delay and there should be explanation in the petition. Therefore, in the absence of any of the same and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the claim made beyond 10 years required no interference. 16. Accordingly, this Court does not find any 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