THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITON No.793 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the award dated 19.01.2002 passed in I.D.No.17 of 2000 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, whereunder the application filed by the 1st respondent herein under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was allowed directing the petitioner herein to reinstate the 1st respondent into service with continuity of service and 50% of backwages. Petitioner-M/s. Srinivasa Cine Theatre is the management. Respondent No.1 is the workman. It appears, while the workman was working as Booking Clerk in the petitioner Theatre, her services were terminated with effect from 02.12.1998. Pursuant thereto, the workman filed an application under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, in I.D.No.17 of 2000. It was the case of the workman before the Labour Court that she joined as Booking Clerk in M/s. Srinivasa Cine Theatre at Bheemunipatnam, the petitioner herein, on 6th November, 1977 on a monthly salary of Rs.60/- and while so, her services were terminated on 02.12.1998 without any notice and payment of retrenchment compensation. Her pay at the time of her illegal termination was Rs.900/- per month and she was not paid her salary for the months of November and December, 1998. It was the case of the management before the Labour Court that the workman was taken into service in April, 1996 and that she left the services on her own accord from 02.12.1998. It was their further case that their business was started in the year 1996 itself, that on account of sudden absence of the workman to duties, they incurred huge loss, that the workman was working in SOS-Children’s village, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District, as a mother trainee. It was also stated that their establishment is running in loss and therefore they are unable to maintain their establishment. The Labour Court, having considered both oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the workman was terminated from service without any notice and retrenchment compensation and, accordingly, allowed the I.D. by its award dated 19.09.2002, directing the management to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service. However, in view of the fact that the theatre was running in loss, directed the management to pay 50% of backwages only. Aggrieved by the said award dated 19.09.2002, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Labour Court grossly failed to look into the contention raised by the management that their theatre was not made a party to the proceedings before the Labour Court. Further, the workman, on her own, absconded to duties without informing the management and never tried to approach the management for resumption to duties. Learned counsel also submitted that the workman did not work for 240 days in a calendar year as per the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned counsel also submitted that since the workman was simultaneously working in SOS-Children’s Village, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District, as mother trainee, granting of 50% of backwages by the Labour Court does not arise. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent-workman supported the award passed by the Labour Court and stated that the Labour Court has rightly found that the workman has completed 240 days in a calendar year and that her services were terminated without following the due process of law. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. Having gone through the impugned award of the Labour Court and other material placed before this Court, I am of the considered opinion that the Labour Court has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and ordered for reinstatement of the workman into service with continuity of service and 50% of backwages, therefore, and impugned award does not call for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 03.02.2011 v v