Paladugu Manikyala Rao vs Labour Court, Guntur and Another

The petitioner in the instant writ petition is aggrieved by the order passed by the Labour Court, Guntur in I.A.No.82/97 in I.D.No.76/96 dated 30-8-1997. In the said application, the petitioner prayed for the relief of stay of eviction of the petitioner From Quarter No. 1, Laxminagar Employees Colony, Vuyyuru. The petitioner''s services were terminated by the second respondent-Management. Thereafter the second respondent-Management issued necessary notice directing the petitioner herein to vacate the quarter in his possession and on his refusal, the second respondent-Management filed S.T.C.No.89/96 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Gannavaram. It is stated that the petitioner filed a claim petition for over-time wages in MP.No.91/96. The said miscellaneous petition also is stated to be pending.

It is the case of the second respondent-management that the petitioner has voluntarily resigned the job through his letter dated 22-5-1995. There is no need to express any opinion on this contentious issue; but, it is required to notice that on the application of petitioner dated 5-6-1995, he was permitted to stay in the quarter upto October, 1995. Since the petitioner had refused to vacate the premises, the second respondent-Management had filed STC.No.86/96 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Gannavaram, and the STC, at the relevant time, when the application was taken up for consideration, was part-heard. On 13-3-1997, the Judgment was pronounced and the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- by granting three months time for vacating the quarter. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below came to the conclusion that the parties are bound by the agreement entered between them and the agreement itself would show that the Labour Court rightly referred to clause 2 of the Terms and Conditions to be followed by the occupant. Clause 2 of the Terms and Conditions says that the occupant of the quarter shall hold such quarter during his employment with the Company or till allotment is terminated by a notice either oral or written by the Company, thereafter he will be treated as trespasser. The clause is so clear and it cannot be said that occupation of the quarter is one of the service conditions. I am of the considered opinion, the Labour Court is right in holding that occupation of the quarter by the employee is not one of the service conditions and as such Section 33(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act has no application. The Court below rightly held that the petitioner herein is liable to be evicted and no stay could be granted in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner.

It is also required to notice that as against the order passed in STC No.89/96, the petitioner herein preferred Crl.R.C. Nos. 1050/97 and 1041/97, which were disposed of by this Court on 17-12-1997 by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate. It is required to notice that in Crl.R.P. No. 1050/97 the petitioner has undertaken to vacate the premises by the end of February, 1998 and having so undertaken the petitioner has once again approached this Court questioning the well considered order passed by the Court below.

I am of the considered opinion that the order of the Court below in dismissing the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner for stay of his eviction from the premises in question does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court below rightly came to the conclusion that both, the petitioner, as well as the second respondent-Management arc bound by the terms of service conditions subject to which the petitioner was inducted into the service or the quarter in question. When once the respondent-Management terminated the occupation of the petitioner in the premises in question, his occupation in the said premises thereafter would be in the nature of a trespasser - Thus, under those circumstances, the Court below rightly held that it is not one of the service conditions and, therefore, the eviction of the petitioner from the quarter would not amount to altering one of service conditions. I am of the considered opinion that Section 33(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act has no application, as the occupation of the petitioner in respect of the quarter is not in accordance with law. The petitioner is not entitled to for any relief The writ petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. No costs. The petitioner shall vacate the premises before 31-3-1998 and handover the same to the respondent-Management. Failure to do so, will entail the respondent-Management to proceed further in the matter.

At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner''s children are appearing for the examination, the petitioner may be permitted to vacate the premises by 20-4-1998. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the undertaking given on behalf of the petitioner, by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, time is extended till 20-4-1998 instead of 31-3-1998.