HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No: 15974 of 1999 Dated 8-7-2010 Between: P.S. Balasubramanyam. …Petitioner. And: The General Manager, National Bank for Agricultural and R.D., Yadagiri Chambers, RTC X Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another. .....Respondents. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No: 15974 of 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking declaration that the award dated 15-2-1999 in I.D.No.36 of 1997 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as a cook in the National Bank for Agricultural Rural Development, Hyderabad on 3-2-1984. Alleging that his services were dispensed with on 8- 12-1984 without following the due process of law, he filed I.D.No.131 of 90 on the file of Labour Court-2, Hyderabad and the same was dismissed by order dated 15-2-1995 on the ground that the respondent-Bank was not a State Government undertaking. Subsequently, the petitioner made an application before the Conciliation Officer which ended in failure. Then the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication under Section 10(1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it was numbered as I.D.No.36 of 1997 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-2, Hyderabad. The petitioner got himself examined as WW1 and marked Exs.W1 to W23 documents on his behalf. So far as respondent- bank is concerned, M.W1 was examined and Exs.M1 and M2 documents were marked to substantiate the claim that the petitioner was appointed only on daily wage basis and he worked only for 235 days. On appreciation of the said evidence, the Labour Court recorded a finding that though the petitioner had worked for a period of 240 days, Section 25-F of the Act was not applicable since it was a case of discharge simplicitor but not retrenchment. Thus it was concluded that the action of the respondent bank in not engaging the petitioner with effect from 8-12-1984 cannot be held to be illegal and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the relief of reinstatement. Aggrieved by the said Award dated 15- 02-1999, the present writ petition has been filed. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal below which were based upon proper appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties. The conclusions arrived at in the impugned order are in accordance with the settled principles of law and there is no reason to hold that the impugned award suffered from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the Writ Petition which is devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No costs. ___________________ G.ROHINI,J Dated: 8-7-2010. Dvs HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI ` WRIT PETITION No: 15974 of 1999 Dated 8-7-2010