THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.13975 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award made in I.D.No.326 of 2000 dated 8.9.2004 on the file of the learned Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur wherein the application filed under Section 2-A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 challenging the termination order dated 6.9.2000 and seeking a direction to the management to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits was partly allowed directing the management to appoint the petitioner in the post of Diesel Mechanic or Cleaner or to any other post to which he is entitled. It appears, respondent-workman was working as casual Mechanic in the Petitioner Corporation at Rayadurg Depot from the year 1997. While that being so, his services were terminated on 6.9.2000. Therefore he raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of I.D. Act before the Labour Court stating that he had completed more than 240 days of continuous service in a calendar year and the procedure as required under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act was not followed while terminating his services. Hence the termination order is bad in law. Petitioner-management resisted the said claim by filing counter stating that the respondent- workman was engaged by a contractor. However, the Labour Court found that the workman had completed more than 240 days preceding the order of termination and the workman was not issued with any notice and no compensation was paid to him violating the provisions of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. Therefore, directed the petitioner-management to appoint the respondent-workman as diesel mechanic or in any other suitable post. Questioning the same, management filed the present writ petition. There is no necessity of going into all the details. On due consideration of the matter, the Labour Court has given a categorical finding stating that the respondent-workman had worked for more than 240 days preceding the date of termination and admittedly no notice of any kind has been issued to the petitioner and no compensation as required under Section 25-F of I.D Act was paid to him, therefore directed the petitioner-management to appoint the workman as Diesel mechanic or in any other suitable post. I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error in passing such an order, which does not warrant any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. However, it is made clear that the respondent-workman is not entitled for any wages till the date of reinstatement. The petitioner- management shall reinstate the workman within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 8.2.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.13975 of 2005 8.2.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.13975 of 2005 Date: 8th February, 2011 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Rayadurg Depot, Rayadurg, Ananthapur district. .. Petitioner And Matan Poojari Siva Kumar and another. .. Respondents