THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.32133 of 1998 Date: 13-02-2008 Between: N.Venkateswarlu …Petitioners and 1.The Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Warangal, and others. …Respondents The Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Writ Petition No.32133 of 1998 Order: The petitioner, a Cashier-cum-Clerk with the second respondent-Society, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, in I.D.No.5 of 1994, dated 27-01-1998, in so far as he was denied back wages and continuity of service. Before the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner examined himself as WW1 and one of the Directors of the second respondent-Society as WW2. He marked Exs.W.1 to W.19. Curiously the second respondent chose not to adduce any evidence either oral or documentary. The Industrial Tribunal, on a detailed analysis of the evidence on record, held, rightly so, that the petitioner had completed 240 days of service in the 12 month period preceding o his termination and that he was illegally terminated from service without following the procedure contemplated under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is well settled law, as has been held by a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court, that the consequences of termination of service without complying with the conditions prescribed in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, would render the termination ab initio void and, as a consequence, the workman would, ordinarily, be entitled to be reinstated into service. Since the Industrial Tribunal has chosen to direct that the petitioner herein be re-employed and, in effect, has denied continuity of service, the award to the extent the petitioner has been denied continuity of service is set aside and the petitioner must be deemed to have been reinstated into service for failure on the part of the second respondent to adhere to the statutory conditions prescribed in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner would, consequently, also be entitled for the benefit of continuity of service. In so far as payment of back wages is concerned, as has been held by the Supreme Court in J.K.Synthetics Ltd. Vs. K.P.Agrawal and another[1], the Labour Court is required to take into account several factors including whether the workman was employed elsewhere in the interregnum, the length of service put in by the workman prior to his termination etc. None of these factors have even been examined by the Labour Court. While Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao would request this Court to adjudicate on these aspects, it is well to remember that this Court exercises its certiorari jurisdiction only to correct errors of law apparent on the face of the record and does not sit in judgment over the conclusions arrived at by Industrial Tribunal- cum–Labour Court. The factors aforementioned are required to be examined on the basis of evidence adduced before the Labour Court. The decision whether back wages should be granted or not would, in turn, be based on an appreciation of such evidence which function has been conferred exclusively on the Industrial Tribunals /Labour Courts. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to set aside the award impugned to the limited extent the petitioner herein has been denied back wages and remand the matter back to the Labour Court for its consideration afresh. The Labour Court shall put both the petitioner and the second respondent on notice, permit them to adduce evidence with regard to the petitioner’s entitlement for payment of back wages and, on the basis of the evidence so adduced, decide whether the petitioner herein is entitled for back wages and, if so, whether in whole or in part. Since the dispute relates to the year 1994, and more than 14 years has lapsed since then, it is but appropriate that the Labour Court considers the matter expeditiously, in any event, not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ______________________ (Ramesh Ranganathan, J) 13th February, 2008 lur [1] (2007) 2 SCC 433