IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No.16351 of 2002 Between: M.Yellaiah (died per LRs) and 3 others ..... PETITIONERS AND The Labour Court-II, 4th Floor, Chandra Vihar building, Nampally, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Presiding Officer and 3 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No.16351 of 2002 O R D E R: The petitioner/workman has impugned the award passed by the Labour Court-II, A.P. Hyderabad dated 01.04.1997 in I.D.No.552/1992, published on 24.01.1998 in so far as denying the back wages and putting the word of “fresh candidate” in the second line of the last paragraph of the impugned award. The petitioner/workman raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court against the oral termination order passed by Respondents Nos.2 to 4 dated 01.01.1980. The petitioner/workman was employed as NMR Mazdoor/casual labour, and he worked at various places like Siddipet etc. However, Respondents Nos.2 to 4 removed him from service orally without issuing any prior notice, without conducting any enquiry, and without paying compensation, by violating the provisions of Sec.25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court, after going through the entire evidence laid by the respective parties, held that as the petitioner/workman had worked for more than 240 days, he was entitled to be reinstated into service with continuity of service. However, while passing the award, the Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the petitioner/workman as a “fresh candidate”. The learned counsel for the petitioner/workman submits that during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner expired and his legal heirs are representing him. The learned counsel further submits that in WP Nos.19319 and 19417 of 1999, decided on 27.04.2007, this Court held that once the Labour Court holds that the termination of the workman is illegal, then the workman is entitled to be reinstated into service with continuity of service without any back-wages or other attendant benefits, however, the appointment cannot be said to be afresh. The learned counsel for the petitioner/workman submits that as the facts of the present case are similar to the facts of W.P.Nos.19319 & 19417 of 1999, therefore, the same order be passed in the present writ petition also. Though the matter is called twice, none appeared for the respondents. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that once the Labour Court recorded a categorical finding that the services of the petitioner/workman are illegally terminated, then the petitioner/workman is ordered to be reinstated into service with continuity of service, however, without any back-wages or other attendant benefits. In view of the above, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, without any back- wages or other attendant benefits. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,J Dated: 29.09.2011 Dsr