IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMA MOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL No. 1132 OF 2005 Between: The Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare Department, Parvathipuram, Srikakulam District and others .....Appellants AND N. Babu and another .....Respondents The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Aggrieved by the order dated 26.3.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P. No. 18825 of 1993 and setting aside the denial of 50% of the back wages passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in I.D. No. 94 of 1992 dated 24.9.1993, the respondents in the writ petition are in appeal. The respondent herein, who was working as Watchman, assailed his termination order dated 24.3.1987 before the second respondent in I.D. No.94 of 1992 and the Industrial Tribunal, Visakhapatnam by order dated 24.9.1993, after conducting enquiry, held that the termination is illegal and that there is no reason to deny 50% of the back wages from the date of his application i.e. 1.4.1989 till the date of his reinstatement, which was assailed by the respondent herein before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge by the order impugned herein has allowed the writ petition setting aside the order to the extent of denying 50% back wages and directed the appellants to pay full back wages. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that there is no finding by the Labour Court with regard to the workmen – respondent engaged for a continuous period of 240 days and in the absence of any such finding, the termination order ought not have been interfered with by the Labour Court and directed reinstatement with 50% back wages and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has erred in awarding full back wages to the workman. Admittedly, the respondent – workman was terminated on 23.4.1987 as Watchman. Though the Labour Court observed that the respondent has proved that he has worked for more than 240 days under the appellants it is not borne out by record and no specific finding, based on acceptable material has been given by the Industrial Tribunal governing the scheme under Sec.25 (f) of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is reinstated into service, we are not inclined to disturb his employment instead, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the finding of the learned Single Judge for payment of the back wages, inasmuch as there is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent has continuously worked for 240 days, entitling him for the back wages. Consequently, the writ appeal is partly allowed setting aside the impugned judgment to the extent of awarding full back wages and the award of the Labour Court is also set aside whereby it granted 50% back wages. No order as to cost. _____________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed __________________________ Justice Nooty Rama Mohana Rao December 5, 2011 MAS