THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :1752 of 2004 Dated:18.6.2010 Between: 1.Nizamabad District Co.op., Central Bank, Nizamabad, rep., by its General Manager. .....PETITIONER AND 1 B.Ramesh and others. .....RESPONDENTs This Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :1752 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of I.D.No:136 of 2000 on the file of Labour Court II, Hyderabad and consequently, to set aside the same. The 1st respondent is the workman and he filed the above I.D seeking to set aside the oral order of termination of his services by the respondents- authorities and to direct the respondents therein to reinstate him into service with full back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits. The workman contended before the Labour Court that during the year 1992, the bank authorities engaged the services of temporary attenders on daily wage basis. The workman joined on 1.4.1992 as attender and he continuously worked till 5.5.1995. Before the Labour Court, Workman examined himself as W.W.1 and the Bank authorities examined its officials as M.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked W.1 to W5. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Labour Court allowed the application setting aside the oral termination order of the respondents- authorities and directed them to reinstate the workman into service with a benefit of continuity of service but without backwages. It is also ordered that on reinstatement the workman is entitled to daily wages payable as on the date of reinstatement. Aggrieved by the same, the Bank authorities filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Labour. Perused the material available on record. The facts that remained undisputed are that the Bank authorities engaged the services of temporary attenders on daily wage basis. According to the authorities, the applicant has not worked continuously. But no material was placed by the authorities before the Tribunal in this regard. Further the evidence of the authorities itself establishes that the 1st respondent-workman is within the definition of the workman under the Industrial Disputes Act and he worked for more than two years. Therefore, the contention of the Bank- authorities that the workman had not worked continuously for a period of 240 days cannot be sustained. Apart from that, the material on record clearly goes to show that the workman was disengaged on the ground that there were some surplus staff, in which circumstances, the authorities are liable to pay retrenchment compensation. There was no material on record that the bank authorities paid the compensation. In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the findings arrived at by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice G.Chandraiah Date:18.6.2010 gurc THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :1752 of 2004 18.6.2010