A P FOODS Vs. S SAMUEL
LAWS(SC)-2006-7-126
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on July 04,2006

ANDHRA PRADESHFOODS Appellant
VERSUS
S.SAMUEL Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

ABDUL KHALIQ RATHER VS. STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2018-9-35] [REFERRED TO]
D. RAJU VS. ALLWYN WATCHES LTD. [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-11-100] [REFERRED TO]
AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION OF EASTERN INDIA VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KOLKATA [LAWS(CAL)-2008-6-53] [REFERRED TO]
RAJNI PARMAR VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL ARMED FORCES MEDICAL SERVICES [LAWS(DLH)-2020-12-109] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH KUMAR VS. WESTERN COALFIELDS LTD & ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2017-5-263] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR HORTICULTURE VS. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER [LAWS(J&K)-2008-7-23] [REFERRED TO]
MST HAJRA VS. STATE AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2017-12-87] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR PRASAD PATHAK VS. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-3-109] [REFERRED TO]
PTI EMPLOYEES UNION VS. PRESS TRUST OF INDIA LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2020-9-84] [REFERRED TO]
KISHORE AND ORS VS. BINU N AND ORS [LAWS(KER)-2013-2-217] [REFERRED TO]
NARANGI BAI VS. YADAGIRI BAL RAJ ALIAS AUSHA BALRAJ [LAWS(APH)-2010-10-79] [REFERRED TO]
AXLES INDIA WORKERS UNION REGD NO CPT/952 VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-2-112] [REFERRED TO]
ESTERN COALFIELDS LTD VS. SIKANDER B P [LAWS(CAL)-2008-3-36] [REFERRED TO]
GEO MILLER & CO. PVT. LIMITED VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE SUGAR CORP LTD VS. ALLAHABAD BANK AND A [LAWS(ALL)-2008-2-21] [REFERRED TO]
MADHULATA KANKANI VS. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(CAL)-2007-7-60] [REFERRED TO]
S SURENDRANATH VS. AIR INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2011-6-141] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZER COOPERATIVE LTD. VS. SALES TAX OFFICER [LAWS(J&K)-2021-3-48] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVRAM SHUKLA VS. DIVISIONAL MANAGER [LAWS(MPH)-2011-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
TNCSC EMPLOYEES UNION VS. TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION REP [LAWS(MAD)-2020-8-239] [REFERRED TO]
COATS VIYELLA EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETIES LTD VS. HARVEY NAGAR RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION [LAWS(MAD)-2013-11-99] [REFERRED TO]
C KAMARAJ VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2011-9-383] [REFERRED TO]
HIND KHADAN MAZDOOR FEDERATION VS. COAL INDIA LTD [LAWS(MPH)-2010-10-42] [REFERRED TO]
SRI NARAYAN MISHRA VS. COAL INDIA LTD. [LAWS(CAL)-2017-8-71] [REFERRED TO]
PURUSHOTTAM LAL DWIVEDI VS. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-4-114] [REFERRED TO]
AXLES INDIA WORKERS UNION VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-2-275] [REFERRED TO]
VILLUPURAM DISTRICT LOADING EMPLOYEES' UNION VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2019-6-677] [REFERRED TO]
NAZIR AHMAD TRUMBOO VS. COMMISSIONER UNDER WORKMENS COMPENSATION & ANR. [LAWS(J&K)-2012-8-32] [REFERRED]
PARDEEP SINGH WAZIR VS. UNION & ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2012-8-33] [REFERRED]
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. R C SAXENA [LAWS(ALL)-2011-4-121] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. BORGANG TEA COMPANY PVT. LTD. & ANR. VS. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2009-6-72] [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2007-4-152] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA SINGH VS. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED [LAWS(MPH)-2018-3-171] [REFERRED TO]
SH. RAM KRISHAN VS. SH. RAM KRISHAN PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2013-5-72] [REFERRED TO]
MAH HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. MAHESH JAGGUMAL SACCHANI [LAWS(BOM)-2007-8-276] [REFERRED]
DILIPBHAI MANEKLAL VYAS VS. TORRENT POWER A E C CO [LAWS(GJH)-2007-6-49] [REFERRED TO]
HOOGHLY INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. VS. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2012-2-408] [REFERRED TO]
ROYAL ENFIELD EMPLOYEES UNION VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2020-7-75] [REFERRED TO]
MUSHTAQ AHMAD SHEIKH VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2012-8-39] [REFERRED]
G KRISHNA MURTHY VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2008-6-22] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND REA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. MAHESH JAGGUMAL SACCHANI [LAWS(BOM)-2007-6-171] [REFERRED TO]
RAM BARAN SINGH VS. U P STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2010-7-9] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.)Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which was affirmed by a Division Bench in Writ Appeal by the impugned judgment.
(2.)Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : Appellant is run by Andhra Pradesh Nutrition Council and is owned and controlled by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Nutrition Council is registered under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 (Act 1 of 1350 Fasli). The principal object is to provide and supply nutritious foods to school and pre-school children, pregnant women and lactating mothers and such other categories of beneficiaries as the Government from time to time decide within the general framework of the Government social welfare programmes. It is claimed to be a non-profit motive establishment. It does not sell or distribute its product either in public or to outsiders except those selected by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under its programmes. In April, 1982 a question arose regarding demand of payment of bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (in short the Act) to the employees of the appellant, and it approached the Commissioner of Labour, inter alia, stating that the (a) regular production of the factory was handed over to the State Government by the CARE Organisation, (b) that the factory is a non-commercial venture, and (c) that, therefore, it falls outside the ambit of the Act. By order dated 21-1-1983 the Commissioner of Labour, Andhra Pradesh held that the provisions of the Act have no application to the factory of the appellant. In November 1984 appellants sanctioned ex-gratia payment to the workers as per GOMs.319 for the year 1983-84 in view of the fact that the Act is not applicable to the appellant and eligibility for the ex-gratia was on the lines being given in some other public sector undertakings. In January, 1986, the Executive Committee of the Nutrition Council decided to sanction ex-gratia of one months salary each year in lieu of bonus to the employees. On the basis of this decision, ex-gratia payment of one months salary from the year 1984-85 was given on the lines of certain other public sector undertakings. GOMs. No. 366, dated 29-10-1993 was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Finance and Planning Department, pending final decision by the Government directing its various Organisations not to pay ex-gratia until further orders. Appellant issued directions by its Circular dated 24-11-1993 that payment of ex-gratia to the employees shall stand withdrawn until further orders. Employees of the appellant-establishment sent representations to the Minister of Labour regarding stoppage of ex-gratia payment. Ministry of Labour by communication in December, 1995 indicated that employees are not entitled to ex-gratia with effect from November, 1993 onwards in view of the guidelines issued by the Government. A Writ Petition was filed by 243 employees making grievance that the stoppage of ex-gratia/bonus was unauthorized and contrary to law. Said Writ Petition was allowed by a learned single Judge. It was submitted that the question whether the employees were entitled to bonus is an industrial dispute and the writ petition should not be entertained. Learned single Judge turned down the contentions of the present appellant that the Act does not apply to it in view of Section 20 and Section 22 of the Act. With reference to certain documents he came to the conclusion that the stand of the appellant that it was working without profit motive is factually wrong. In any event, Section 22 of the Act would not stand in the way of entertaining the writ petition. The appellant filed a writ appeal before the High Court which maintained the order of learned single Judge by the impugned judgment.
(3.)Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on a combined reading of Sections 20, 22 and 32(v)(c) of the Act, the inevitable conclusion is that the writ petition should not have been entertained. Further Section 22 clearly stipulates that the dispute raised is an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ID Act). Since disputed questions of fact were involved, the writ petition should not have been entertained.


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