PARRY AND CO LTD Vs. SECRETARY HOME LABOUR I DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD
LAWS(APH)-1971-9-32
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 11,1971

PARRY AND CO., LTD., MADRAS REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR Appellant
VERSUS
SECRETARY, HOME (LABOUR-I) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Obul Reddi, J. - (1.) This writ petition is before us, as it has been referred to a Division Bench by Gopal Rao Ekbote, J., on the ground that the two points raised herein to which we shall refer later "are of some importance and are likely to arise in a number of cases" and that "some decisions of the Supreme Court as Well as of this Court will have to be appreciated appropriately for resolving these two important questions".
(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are these: The petitioner is M/s. Parry & Co. Ltd., Madras. The 1st respondent is the Secretary Home (Labour-I) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh; and the and respondent is the Labour Court, Hyderabad. The 3rd respondent was an employee of the petitioner-company in its establishment at Vijayawada. The 3rd respondent was appointed as a Salesman on 22nd February, 1955 by the petitioner with headquarters at Secunderabad. He was later transferred as a clerk to the Visakhapatnam office of the petitioner-company in December, 1966. He was transferred in February 1967 as a clerk to Vijayawada and he started working at the Vijayawada office of the petitioner-company from 22nd February, 1967. According to the petitioner the 3rd respondent absented himself from duty without permission from. 8th September, 1967 and no application was submitted by him for leave before he availed himself of the leave. A copy of a letter dated 7th September, 1967 addressed to the Vijayawada office asking for two days' leave for 'domestic work' and to attend to some 'Court affairs' was received by the Head Office, Madras on 12th September, 1967. On nth September, 1967, the Vijayawada Office received a telegram from the 3rd Respondent for leave upto 16th September 1967 without giving any reasons for leave. He was then advised by a memo dated 13th September, 1967 that the leave asked for cannot be granted. The 3rd respondent, being aWare of the fact that no leave was granted by the Head Office, it is the petitioner's case, failed to report for duty even on the morning of 18th September, 1967. In the above circumstances and in accordance with the General Office Order No. 25, applicable to the non-covenanted staff of the company, the 3rd respondent's name was removed from the rolls of the company from 18th September, 1967 for continued absence without permission from 8th September, 1967 as he was deemed to have voluntarily left the petitioner's service thereby. He then raised an industrial dispute in regard to his removal from the rolls of the petitioner's company and a reference was made by the Government to the Labour Court under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(3.) A preliminary objection was raised by the petitioner that the appropriate Government to make a reference to the Labour Court was not the Government of Andhra Pradesh, but the Government of Tamil Nadu, as the Head-Office of the petitioner-ccmpany, which exercised final administrative control over the 3rd respondent, was at Madras; and it is the Head-Office that appointed him and dealt with his application for leave and also passed the order removing him from service. It was to the Head-Office that the 3rd respondent looked for redressal of the action taken against him and, therefore, it could not be said that any part of the cause of action arose within the State of Andhra Pradesh to make the Government of Andhra Pradesh the appropriate Government to make the reference under section 10 of the Act.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.