IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 2362 of 2005 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 16.11.2005 in WP NO. 4306 of 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: V.Kumara Swamy ..... APPELLANT AND The Deputy General Manager, IRCON International Limited, Ramagundam, Karimnagar District and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) Aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.2005 made in WP No.4306 of 2002 by a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, the present Writ Appeal is filed. It is case of the appellant herein that he was appointed as a driver on 7.10.1981 under the control of third respondent at its Ramagundam Project and continuously worked as such upto 1984. Since the appellant expressed his willingness to work at Iraq project, which the third respondent undertook, he was relieved on 24.3.1984. He worked there till 29.8.1987. It is also his case that though he was repatriated to the Corporate Office by orders dated 29.7.1987 with a direction to report to the office at Delhi, he was not reinstated or taken back into service. Therefore, when the representations made by him did not yield any fruit, he filed WP No. 30565 of 1997 before this court, which was disposed of on 13.4.1998 requiring him to avail alternative remedy before the Labour Court and, as such, he raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D. No. 12 of 1998 under Sec. 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act contending that he worked more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of his termination in 1987 and as such the termination is illegal in terms of Sec. 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is case of the respondents herein that IRCON being a Government of India Company, the Labour Court at Warangal has no jurisdiction under Sec. 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is also their case that the claim is barred by latches inasmuch as there is abnormal delay of more than ten years after the cause of action has arisen. It is further pleaded that since the appellant was appointed as driver only on daily wage basis in the Ramagundam Project and he being a work charged employee, the appointment is terminable at the closure of the project. It is further averred that while working at the project, the appellant had voluntarily offered to work at Iraq on contract basis and consequently left for Iraq and after completion of work in the Iraq Project, came back to India on expiry of period of contract and, therefore, it is vehemently asserted that since the appellant was not a regular employee of either the third respondent or of its Ramagundam Project, he had no right or lien to claim employment. It is further their case that though the respondents have offered work in the Iraq Project, the appellant did not express his willingness to work in the said project. The Tribunal, on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence adduced before it, has dismissed the I.D. inasmuch as the appellant had approached the Tribunal more than a decade after the cause of action has arisen. The Tribunal on scrutiny of Ex.M-2 further observed that since the records relating to Ramagundam Project and IRCON project were destroyed, the appellant cannot be held to have established the status of a regular employee. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed the above writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 24.8.2001 passed in I.D. No.12 of 1998 and to declare the termination of the appellant’s services by order dated 29.7.1987 as illegal and to consequently direct the respondents to pay salary from 29.7.1987 to January, 1999 and to pay compensation under the I.D. Act. The learned Single Judge on extensive consideration of the rival contentions dismissed the writ petition observing that the Tribunal, on a conspectus of the evidence available on record, by a cogent and rational analysis, has rightly denied the relief to the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Appeal is filed. The events of service of the appellant narrated above are not in dispute. As can be seen from the facts, when the appellant has failed to prove his status as that of a regular employee of either IRCON or its Ramagundem Project, the work of the petitioner in Iraq Project can only to said to be independent and contractual and it has no relation with the casual service rendered by the appellant in the Ramagundam Project. Therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge that as there was a cessation of the appellant’s service in the Ramagundam Project in 1984 and with the Iraq Project in 1987, he cannot claim reinstatement into service or continuity of service cannot be disturbed. That apart, both the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge are right in negativing the claim of the appellant, if any, on the ground of latches for more than ten years after the cause of action has arisen, which is not explained. Over and above, admittedly, Ramagundem Project is located in Karimnagar and the Iraq Project is located beyond the territories of India and, as such, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in observing that since no part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal, Warangal, it had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Having gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any error warranting interference in the Writ Appeal. Consequently, the Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar December 4, 2009 MAS.