THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NOs.1115 of 2010 and 474, 520, 470 and 482 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) These Writ Appeals are filed against the common order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.2543, 2130, 2563, 2401 and 2454 of 1998 dated 19-02-2010. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the Industrial Disputes. The petitioners are the workmen, 1st respondent is the owner of the bus and respondents 2 to 4 are the management. The brief facts of the case are that the workmen were appointed in various posts of the bus of the 1st Respondent/Owner in the year 1985. Thereafter, the bus was leased out to 2nd respondent and further it was leased to the 3rd respondent, which was in-turn leased out to the 4th respondent. While so, 3rd respondent terminated the workmen from service by obtaining an injunction order. Challenging their termination, the workmen made a representation before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Vizianagaram, wherein, an industrial dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, to resolve the dispute as to whether the termination of the service of the workmen on the bus on route of Vizianagaram to Kottam Via Jami by the Management of the bus was justified? If not to what relief the workmen are entitled to?. 3. I.D.Nos.267, 263, 264, 266 and 265 of 1993 were filed before the Tribunal for resolving the setback. While the 2nd and the 4th respondents remained exparte, the 1st respondent/Owner and the 3rd respondent contested the proceedings. The Tribunal opined that, the respondents 1 and 3 resorted to a very strange method of obtaining injunction against the statutory right of a workman to continue in office till he is duly terminated. After paying much attention, the Tribunal granted a reasonable compensation of Rs.90,000/- to each workman pertaining to I.D.Nos.267, 263, 266 and 265 of 1993 and Rs.30,000/- to the workman pertaining to I.D.No.264 of 2003, with interest at 12% p.a., in lieu of reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service, fastening the liability on the respondents 1,2 and 3 jointly and severally. Challenging the award passed by the Tribunal, Writ Petition Nos.2543, 2130, 2563, 2401 and 2454 of 1998 were filed by the 3rd respondent, wherein, the learned single Judge of this Court did not find any reason to set-aside the impugned award passed by the Tribunal and accordingly dismissed the writ petitions. Aggrieved by the said order dated 19.02.2010, the 3rd respondent filed the present batch of writ appeals. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the relationship of Employer and Employee is not available between 3rd respondent and workmen and also contends that instead of awarding compensation in lieu of the reinstatement of the workmen by applying the multiplier under the Motor Vehicles Act, the compensation can be calculated under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. It is evident from the record that, the 3rd respondent admitted in the cross-examination that he had filed a criminal case against the workmen and it was also evident from the Judgment in the criminal case that workmen were his employees. Hence, in the light of the admission of the 3rd respondent that he had employed the workmen, it is evident that there existed an employer and employee relationship between the 3rd respondent and the workmen. With regard to compensation, the learned single Judge has rightly observed that the Industrial Disputes Act provides machinery for adjudication of disputes between the employer and his workman, and the provisions neither stipulate nor prohibit application of any reasonable principle for awarding compensation. 6. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case stated supra, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge has rightly confirmed the Award of the Tribunal. We are not persuaded to take a view different from that of the learned single Judge to interfere with the Order passed by him. The Writ Appeals are merit-less and are accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J __________________________​______ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 5th December,2011 sp THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NOs.1115 OF 2010 And WRIT APPEAL Nos.474, 520, 470 and 482 of 2011 5th December, 2011 sp