APHC010596722024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3251/2024 Between: 1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. P RAMANAIAH, S/o Late P. Chinnaiah Aged about 55 years, R/o D. No. 5-43, Sanappa Colony, Avilala, Tirupati Rural, Tirupathi District ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toMemorandum of Civil Revision Petition to this Honourable Court against the Docket orders dt. 03-12-2024 passed in E.P. No. 634 / 2024 in I.D. No. 188 /2007 on the file of The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal cum - Labour Court, Ananthapur, IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pleased to suspend the orders dt. 03.12.2024 pass.ed in E.P. No. 634 / 2024 in I.D. No. 188 / 2007 on the file of The Chairman-cum- Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal - Cum - Labour Court, Ananthapur, pending disposal of the above CRP and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.3251 of 2024 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 may be pleased to vacate the interim order dt: 31.12.2024, in CRP.No.3251 of 2024, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. G V SHIVAJI The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.3251 of 2024 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3251/2024 The Court made by following ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, against the order dated 03.12.2024 in E.P.No.634 of 2024 in I.D.No.188 of 2007 passed by the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur, whereby the Tribunal ordered attachment of movable property of the revision petitioner-Executive Officer, TTD. 2. The revision petitioner herein is the respondent-Executive Officer, TTD and the respondent herein is the petitioner in I.D.No.188 of 2007. For the sake of convenience and for better appreciation of the case, the parties will be referred as they arrayed before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. 3. The petitioner along with similar persons filed a batch of Industrial Dispute cases before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananathapur, and I.D.No.188 of 2007 filed by the petitioner is one among them. He claimed that termination of his services with effect from 30.04.1988 as illegal, arbitrary and invalid. He claimed that he was appointed as Volunteer by the respondent in Annadanam Canteen and was attending to duties in the kitchen, dining halls and also cleaning dining tables, dining hall and utensils. From the date of his 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.3251 of 2024 joining, he was discharging his respective duties and worked more than 240 days in a period of 12 calendar months and that the petitioner is entitled for regularization of his services. While so, the respondent-Devasthanam orally terminated the services of the petitioner along with others w.e.f. 30.04.1988. Challenging the said termination, the petitioner along with similar persons filed a batch of Industrial Dispute cases and the Tribunal, after a full-fledged trial, passed a common award vide its award dated 31.03.2009, directing the respondent-Devasthanam to reinstate them into service, while denying backwages. However, challenging the said orders, the respondent- Devasthanam filed W.P.No.15991 of 2009 and after due enquiry, the said writ petition was dismissed on 02.06.2017, against which, the Devasthanam preferred W.A.No.923 of 2017 and the same was also dismissed on 27.01.2020. Thereafter, since the respondent-Devasthanam failed to implement the orders passed in I.D.No.188 of 2007, the petitioner filed E.P.No.634 of 2024 under Section 11 (9) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Order XXI Rules 43, 64 and 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking implementation of the award, failing which, attachment and sale of schedule movable property for implementation of the award. The Tribunal, vide its order, dated 03.12.2024, ordered issuance of Order XXI Rule 43 attachment order. Assailing the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed. 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.3251 of 2024 4. This Court, on 31.12.2024, while ordering notice before admission, passed the following interim order: “Therefore, there shall be interim suspension of the order dated 03.12.2024 passed in E.P.No.634 of 2024 in I.D.No.188 of 2007 on the file of the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ananathapur, for a period of twelve (12) weeks.” The said orders were extended from time to time. 5. Heard Smt. V.Dyumani, learned counsel for the revision petitioner- Devasthanam and Sri G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the Tribunal grossly erred in ordering attachment of movable property of the Executive Officer, TTD without there being any enquiry and without looking into the contents of the counter filed by the revision petitioner-Devasthanam. She submits that the respondent herein along with others filed W.P.No.26481 of 2011 seeking consideration of their cases for the post of Volunteers in TTD Annadanam Canteen or such other available posts in TTD by giving preference to their experience and as per the orders in the said writ petition, the services of the petitioner along with others were being utilizing as Sulabh Workers at Annaprasadam Complex, TTD Tirumala on outsourcing basis vide proceedings dated 24.07.2013 and they are drawing Rs.15,000/- per month at present. She further submits that the said orders in W.P.No.26481 of 2011 were passed after passing stay order in W.P.No.15591 of 2009, which was filed by TTD against the award in I.D.No.188 of 2009 and batch. She submits 6 VS,J C.R.P.No.3251 of 2024 since the petitioner is already working as unskilled labourer in Vegetable section, Annadanam Canteen TTD on outsourcing basis on monthly wages of Rs.15,000/-, the present Execution Petition is wholly misconceived and prays to dismiss the same. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner would submit that in spite of the award passed by the Labour Court, the revision petitioner-Devasthanam failed to implement the orders of the Tribunal in reinstating the petitioner and others and whenever they approached the Executive Officer, they simply gave evasive reply stating that they filed W.P.No.15991 of 2009 and asked them to wait till the outcome of the said writ petition. He submits that in spite of request made by TTD Devasthanam to MS Sulabh International Social Service Organization, Hyderabad to supply 10 slum workers to work in Matrusri Tarigonda Vengamamba Anna Prasadam Complex, Tirumala, for a period of one year with effect from the date of utilizing their services, since the respondent and others are approaching TTD for reinstatement, the TTD Devasthanam unauthorisedly engaged the service of the respondent and except using ID number, no orders were issued for reinstatement and the respondent has been working continuously till date. He submits that the services of the respondent is of perennial nature as the Executive Officer has regularized 206 similarly situated persons and they were paying salaries at Rs.72,000/- per month, while the respondent has been made to work at Rs.15,000/- per month and if the respondent have not 7 VS,J C.R.P.No.3251 of 2024 terminated the services of the respondent they would have been regularsized along with them. In spite of several representations made by the respondent, the TTD failed to consider the same for regularization, as per the orders of the High Court. He further submits that the present Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable as the impugned order is passed by the Labour Court and the same is neither appealable nor amenable to revision except the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and hence, he prays to dismiss the C.R.P. 8. The only point that arises for consideration herein is whether the orders dated 03.12.2024 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananathapur, is amenable for ordering attachment of movable property of the Executive Officer, TTD invoking the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure? 9. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to refer the provisions of Section 11 (9) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which reads thus: (9) Every award made, order issued or settlement arrived at by or before Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal shall be executed in accordance with the procedure laid down for execution of orders and decree of a Civil Court under order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908). 10. A reading of the provision extracted above makes it clear the order of the Tribunal/Labour Court shall be executed in accordance with the procedure 8 VS,J C.R.P.No.3251 of 2024 laid down for execution of orders and decrees of a Civil Court under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure. 11. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that the Tribunal grossly erred in considering the case of the revision petitioner in proper perspective without there being any enquiry and without looking into the contents of the counter filed by the revision petitioner in the Execution Petition. It appears from the record that in W.P.No.26481 of 2011 filed by the petitioner and others for consideration of their cases for the post of volunteers in TTD Annadanam canteen, this court on 23.09.2011 issued an interim direction directing the respondent-Devasthanam that whenever any contract for rendering cleaning and other servicers is awarded, they shall engage the services of the petitioner therein who are fit, eligible and willing to render services and later the said writ petition was disposed by making the said order absolute. It also appears that as against the award dated 31.03.2009 passed by the Tribunal, the Executive Officer filed W.P.No.15991 of 2009, which was later dismissed. The fact remains that the order in W.P.No.26481 of 2011 itself was passed during pendency of W.P.No.15991 of 2009. 12. It is pertinent to mention that pursuant to orders in W.P.No.26481 of 2011, considering the representations of the petitioner and others, their services were being utilized as unskilled labourer at Annaprasadam Complex in Vegetable Section, Annadanam canteen TTD on outsourcing basis, vide proceedings Roc.No.A2/378/MTVA/TML/2013, dated 24.07.2013 and they are 9 VS,J C.R.P.No.3251 of 2024 receiving payment approximately Rs.15,000/- per month plus statutory payments of EPF and ESI and to that effect they expressed their gratitude towards TTD Devasthanamby giving letters to the Devasthanam stating that as per the orders passed by the High Court in WPMP No.32680 of 2011 in W.P.No.26481 of 2011, they were given jobs in the vegetable section and from 01.08.2013 onwards they have been working with god grace sincerely and they are grateful to the Devasthanam for giving opportunity to work at TTD Devasthanam. The said fact appears to be neither disputed nor denied. 13. Contrary to the above, the respondent herein filed E.P.No.634 of 2024 in I.D.No.188 of 2007 invoking the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, for implementation of the award, by attaching movable property of the revision petitioner-Executive Officer. At the outset, it can be stated that such an Execution Petition is not sustainable, in view of implementation of the orders passed by this court in W.P.No.26481 of 2011, by way of utilizing the services of the petitioner and others in M.T.V. Annaprasada Complex, Tirumala vide proceedings Roc.No.A2/378/MTVA/TML/2013, dated 24.07.2013. In fact, the interim orders passed in W.P.No.15991 of 2009 filed by the revision petitioner herein, as against the orders in I.D.No.186 of 2007 and batch, led the petitioner and others to file W.P.No.26481 of 2011. As already stated, pursuant to the orders passed in the said writ petition, the services of the respondent herein and others were being utilized as unskilled labourers and they are continuing as such. Therefore, it can be safely 10 VS,J C.R.P.No.3251 of 2024 concluded that since the orders passed in I.D.No.188 of 2007 are implemented by utilizing the services of the petitioner as unskilled labourer, pursuant to the orders in W.P.No.26481 of 2011, no useful purpose would be served in ordering attachment of movable properties of the revision petitioner- Executive Officer. A thorough scrutiny of the material would show that the Tribunal, without properly appreciating the material facts and without conducting any enquiry into the facts, simply ordered attachment of movable properties of the Executive Officer. Such an approach by the Tribunal is not appreciable and not justifiable in law. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the correctness of the order under revision, since the Execution Petition is totally misconceived in view of the facts stated above, this court is of the considered view that the order under revision suffers from serious infirmity and illegality warranting interference of this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, and thus, the order dated 03.12.2024 passed in E.P.No.634 of 2024 is liable to be set aside. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 03.12.2024 in E.P.No.634 of 2024 in I.D.No.188 of 2007 passed by the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur, is hereby set aside. However, it is made clear that since E.P.No.634 of 2024 is found to be misconceived, the same becomes superfluous and is hereby closed. 11 VS,J C.R.P.No.3251 of 2024 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:05.12.2025 JLV 12 VS,J C.R.P.No.3251 of 2024 343 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3251/2024 Date:05.12.2025 JLV