THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.25146 of 2000 ORDER: The award of Labour Court I, Hyderabad, in I.D. No.104 of 1998 dated 12.05.2000, is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner-workman filed an application under Section 2- A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to declare that the termination of his services on 30.06.1985 was illegal and unjustified, and that he be awarded the relief of reinstatement with back wages and attendant benefits. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as a watchman (Chowkidar) on N.M.R. basis with effect from 01.03.1982. He claims to have been continued as a watchman till he was illegally terminated on 30.06.1985. It is his case that, though he had completed more than three years continuous service, the respondents had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act before terminating his services. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner worked only for a period of three months from 01.03.1982 to 31.05.1982; he was engaged again on NMR basis with effect from 01.03.1983; he continued to work upto the end of March, 1984; the petitioner, in association with one M. Satyanarayana Reddy who was working as a clerk in the valuation department, was involved in issuance of duplicate challans, and acting adverse to interests to the Corporation; the involvement of the petitioner was noticed by the respondent authorities; apprehending action being taken against him, the petitioner left his employment from 1984 onwards; Crime No.133 of 1985 was registered against the petitioner by the Kachiguda police station; no action was taken by the respondent against the petitioner who, himself, stopped attending office in view of the aforesaid activities; as the petitioner was an NMR, and he had left the organization on his own accord, no disciplinary action was taken against him; the petitioner himself chose not to attend duties from March, 1984 onwards; he had raised a dispute fourteen years thereafter in the year 1998; and his claim was liable to be rejected on the ground of laches alone. With regards the petitioner’s claim for regularization, the respondents would contend that the petitioner is not entitled to claim regularization in terms of G.O.Ms. No.212 dated 22.04.1994. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner examined himself as WW1. He marked Exs.W-1 to W-7. On behalf of the respondent management MW-1 was examined. The Labour Court held no termination orders, either oral or written, was passed against the petitioner; except for one representation there was no other representation to show that the petitioner had approached the respondent corporation seeking reinstatement after his services were terminated; apprehending action against him by the police, and departmental action being initiated against him by the respondents, the petitioner had stopped attending duties; MW-1 deposed that the petitioner left the services on his own accord and no termination orders were passed against him; no effort was made by the petitioner to seek reinstatement; his conduct clearly showed that he was least bothered about the job; while no representation was submitted seeking reinstatement, the petitioner had sought regularization of his services; he had raised the dispute after a lapse of fourteen years; and, in such circumstances and in the absence of documentary evidence, the petitioner’s plea could not be believed. The Labour Court held that there was no cogent evidence to show that the petitioner’s services were terminated by the respondent corporation without complying with the procedure stipulated under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act; his silence for fourteen years rendered his version doubtful; in such circumstances, the petitioner had no right to seek reinstatement since he had left the job on his own accord about fourteen yeas ago, and had not bothered about the job for such a long period. The petition filed under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, was dismissed. Sri J. Gopalakrishna, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner had made repeated representations to the management with the fond hope that he would be reinstated into service; it was in such circumstances that he had not approached the Labour Court earlier; delay by itself was not fatal and did not preclude the Labour Court from moulding the relief. Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act enables the workman, specified in sub-section (1), to make an application directly to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute. Under Section 2-A(1), where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman was a party to the dispute. It is only in cases where a workman has been discharged, dismissed, retrenched or otherwise terminated from service can he approach the Labour Court directly under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Regularisation of services is a matter which the Labour Court is not entitled to examine in proceedings under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the remedy available to the petitioner-workman, for seeking such a relief, is under Section 10 of the Act. The protection available to a workman, under Section 25-F, is only in case his services are terminated. The Labour Court, on a detailed analysis of the evidence on record, has come to conclusion that the petitioner herein had, on his own volition, left the services of the respondent corporation; and the corporation had not terminated his services. In the light of this finding of the Labour Court, which is based on the evidence on record, and the very fact the petitioner had kept silent for more than fourteen years, from the date of the alleged termination, before invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, the conclusion of the Labour Court that it was the petitioner who, on apprehending action being taken against him both by the police and the respondents, had stopped attending duty on his own accord, cannot be said to perverse or based on no evidence. Failure on the part of the corporation to take disciplinary action for his absence was only for the reason that the petitioner was an NMR workman and was, even during his employment, entitled only to be paid salary on the days when he worked. The contention of Sri J. Satyanarayana, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner had submitted repeated representations, and it is with the fond hope that the respondent corporation would reinstate him into service that he did not invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court earlier, does not merit acceptance. The delay is inordinate and in excess of fourteen years. This delay, by itself, would justify the petitioner’s claim being rejected. The Labour Court has, however, examined the matter on merits and has observed that his silence for fourteen years was also another circumstance to show that he had left the services of the respondent corporation on his own accord, and that his services had not been terminated by the respondents. This Court, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit in appeal over findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court nor would it substitute its conclusion for that of the Labour Court. It is only when the findings recorded suffer from perversity, or are based on no evidence, would this Court be justified in interfering with the award. The award of the Labour Court does not suffer from any such infirmity necessitating interference in certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 30.09.2010 MRKR