(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of our learned brother, Muktadar, J., allowing with costs the writ petition filed by the management of 'Assam Tea Depot' against the order of the Labour Court, Hyderabad which, in turn, had allowed a petition filed by a worker under section 33C (2) of the industrial Disputes Act.
(2.) It would be necessary to state a few facts, for appreciating the contentions arising herein. The appellant was an employee with the 1st respondent Assam Tea Depot, His services were terminated on account of certain charges made against him. It would be sufficient for our purposes to state that he filed a petition M.P. No. 82/1970, under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the Labour Court, claiming that he is entitled to a sum of Rs. 4.860/- under five counts. They are: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_291_APLJ1_1976Html1.htm</FRM>
(3.) The petitioner - contended that his services were terminated illegally and that, the above amount are , the above amounts are due to him, according to law. The management besides denying the right of the workman to the said amount or any part thereof, also disputed the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain the said petition, but which objections were over-ruled and the workman was awarded an amount of Rs. 2,700/- under the order Impugned in the writ petition. Thereupon the management filed the writ petition, W.P. No. 4851/1972. and the only question raised before the learned single judge was that the labour court has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition u/s. 33C (2) of the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947, in respect of the petitioner-workman who is governed by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act. and the rules made thereunder. The said contention was accepted by the learned single judge, following the decision of a Division Bench of this court in writ Petition Nos. 5494/71 and 3390/73 dated 26-7-1973. It was held by the learned single Judge that the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishment Act is a self- contained enactment providing its own procedure for raising the disputes between the employer and employees. and also providing an appeal and a second appeal and that, In such a case a workman cannot have recourse to the said summary remedy provided by the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 Hence this writ Appeal by the workman.