2014 (2) TMI 1385 - HC - Indian Laws

Termination of services of an employee - principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the employee had been discharging supervisory and managerial functions by controlling three branches of the petitioner company at different locations - HELD THAT - In the present instance, it is not a case of jurisdictional error but, at best, an adjudicatory error, if any. Further, the order of the first appellate authority cannot be treated as a nullity. The adjudicatory authority lacking the inherent jurisdiction is one thing and the applicant not fitting into the framework of a statute under which the authority does have power is another thing. In this case it cannot be stated that the petitioner company is not covered by the provisions of the Act, which in section 2(5) defines 'commercial establishment', which the petitioner is. In the same breath, it cannot be further said that the first appellate authority is not the proper authority under the said Act to exercise his quasi judicial jurisdiction over the petitioner company. The entire issue hinges on the categorisation of the deceased employee - whether he was an employee in terms of section 2(8). Even otherwise, there are disputed questions of fact to be adjudicated as has already been indicated. It is a truism to state that a decision is an authority to what it actually decides, more particularly, in the factual setting of the said case. The constitutional courts have always leaned towards the common man when he has come to the court with a grievance that he has been a victim of executive excesses or administrative vagaries. Under those circumstances the benefit of public law remedy cannot be thwarted on technicalities. Under a writ of certiorari the jurisdiction of the High Court is extremely restricted, for it looks at the decision making process rather than the decision itself - Going by the settled principles of law as to the writ of certiorari, it is difficult to see any error in the decision making process. It is only in the interest of Justice that this court desires to provide ample scope for the respective parties to agitate their issues, compendiously and comprehensively involving disputed questions of fact as well as the status of the parties, before a statutory authority, that is the second appellate authority - Going by the settled principles of law as to the writ of certiorari, it is difficult to see any error in the decision making process. It is only in the interest of Justice that this court desires to provide ample scope for the respective parties to agitate their issues, compendiously and comprehensively involving disputed questions of fact as well as the status of the parties, before a statutory authority, that is the second appellate authority. This Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of the first appellate authority, nor is it a case of laying challenge against statutory provisions as ultra vires. No infraction of principles of natural Justice has been pleaded, either. It is a simple case of determining whether the deceased employee is an employee in terms of section 2(8) of the Act - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the authorities under the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988.
2. Classification of the deceased employee as a "manager" or "employee" under Section 2(8) of the Act.
3. Allegations of bias and procedural irregularities by the first appellate authority.
4. Maintainability of the writ petition in the presence of an alternative remedy.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Authorities:
The petitioner company challenged the jurisdiction of the authorities under the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, claiming that the employee did not fall within the definition of "employee" under Section 2(8) of the Act. The court examined Section 48 of the Act, which outlines the appointment of authorities to hear appeals arising from the termination of services. The court concluded that the first appellate authority did not inherently lack jurisdiction, as the petitioner company is a "commercial establishment" under Section 2(5) of the Act, and the authority has quasi-judicial jurisdiction over the company.

2. Classification of the Deceased Employee:
The petitioner argued that the deceased employee was discharging managerial functions and thus should be classified as a "manager" rather than an "employee" under Section 2(8) of the Act. The court noted that the core issue was whether the deceased employee was an "employee" as defined by the Act, which involves disputed questions of fact. The court emphasized that this classification requires appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in the writ petition.

3. Allegations of Bias and Procedural Irregularities:
The petitioner alleged bias and procedural irregularities by the first appellate authority, including the disregard of the second appellate authority's directions and the missing documents. The court observed that these allegations involve disputed facts and require comprehensive adjudication, which is beyond the scope of a writ petition. The court highlighted instances of disputed facts, such as the alleged fabrication of documents and the conduct of the first appellate authority.

4. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The court discussed the maintainability of the writ petition in the presence of an alternative remedy. The petitioner argued that the first appellate authority lacked inherent jurisdiction, making the writ petition maintainable. The court, however, found that the issue was not one of jurisdictional error but rather an adjudicatory error. The court cited precedents emphasizing that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the maintainability of a writ petition but should be considered in the context of the specific case. The court concluded that the petitioner should have approached the second appellate authority under Section 48(3) of the Act, as the matter involved disputed questions of fact and required comprehensive adjudication.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it was devoid of merit. The court emphasized that the petitioner should exhaust the alternative remedy available under the Act by approaching the second appellate authority. The court also noted that no infraction of principles of natural justice was pleaded, and the matter primarily involved the classification of the deceased employee, which required a detailed examination of evidence. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, were also closed.