IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 135 of 2006 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 01/03/2002 in WP NO : 8812 OF 1996 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The Executive Director, District Scheduled Caste Service, 2 The District Collector, Chairman, APSCS Co-op. Society Limited, Guntur, ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur, 2 Tummala Ramaiah S/o. Seetaiah Guntur, .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: MR.M.GANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR WRIT PETITION NO : 6080 of 2008 Between: Tummala Ramaiah S/o. Seethaiah R/o. 7th Lane, A.T. Agraharam, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Executive Director, The Guntur District Scheduled Caste Coop. Society Ltd., Z.D.Compound, Guntur. 2 The Chairman Cum District Collector, The Guntur District Scheduled Caste Coop. Society Ltd., Z.D.Compound, Guntur. Guntur District. 3 The Labour Court, Rep. by Presiding Officer, Guntur. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order dt. 16-10-2007 in MP No.1/2003 on the file of the a3rd Respondent Court as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and consequently direct the respondents 1 & 2 to regularize petitioner's Services with continuity of service back wages on par with petitioner's Juniors and other attendant benefits together with interest and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : (common judgment) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WA No.135 of 2006 & WP No.6080 of 2008 JUDGMENT :: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) The subject matter both in the writ appeal and the writ petition is same and the parties are also same, hence they are clubbed and heard together and being disposed by this common judgment. The Writ Appeal is filed against the order dated 1-3-2002 passed in WP No.8812 of 1996 by the learned single Judge of this Court. For the sake of convenience, the facts in WA No.135 of 06 are adverted to. 2. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent herein (workman in ID No.550 of 1991) for short, referred to as ‘workman’ joined as Section Writer on 1-8-1986 in the Guntur District Scheduled Caste Co-op. Society Limited, Guntur,-1st appellant herein and worked as such till 31-1-1990. That the workman was discharging the duties of collection of margin money and allied duties and such other clerical duties which were entrusted to him by the management from time to time. While so on 1-2-1990, when the workman attended to his duties, the officials of the office of the 1st appellant orally informed him that they are orally terminating his services. 3. Questioning his oral termination from the service, the workman filed the above ID under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking for reinstatement into service with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits. The Labour Court, Guntur-1st respondent herein by order dated 11-10-1995 allowed the petition and granted relief which is in the following terms:- “17. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is also entitled to absorption in the post in which he is continuing or any other equivalent post. Hence under these circumstances the respondents are directed to absorb the petitioner on regular basis in which he is working or in any equivalent post. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, but in the circumstances of the case without costs.” 4. The appellants herein questioned the award dated 11-10-1995 passed by the 1st respondent in ID No.550 of 1991 on the ground that it is arbitrary and illegal and also for other appropriate reliefs before this Court in WP No.8812 of 1996. By the impugned order the learned single Judge having noted the contents of the cross examination of management witness MW-1 wherein it was stated by the witness that juniors to the workman were being continued in service and the workman was not given any notice, dismissed the writ petition confirming the award passed by the Labour Court. The Management further carried the matter in appeal by way of this writ appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge and the award passed by the Labour Court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contented that the Labour Court as well as this Court erred in granting the relief of directing the management to absorb the workman in the post in which he was continuing, which is not sought for by the workman. Learned counsel further stated that the relief sought for, as could be deciphered, from the pleadings by the workman was only for re-instatement into service with continuity of service etc. Even otherwise, it is contended that the services of the workman were terminated by following the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-workman submitted that inasmuch as it has come in evidence of the management witness that on the relevant date on which the workman was orally terminated from the services no notice or retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman and juniors to the workman were continued in service, the award of the Labour Court as confirmed by this Court in the writ petition, does not warrant any interference the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. The point that arises for consideration is whether the award passed by the Labour Court in ID No.550 of 1991 and as confirmed by learned single Judge is sustainable in law ? 8. The workman joined as Section Writer on 1-8-1986 in the office of 1st appellant and worked as such continuously till 31-3-1990 and when he attended office on 1-2-1990 he was told that his services are orally terminated. It is the specific case of the workman that before termination no notice was given nor he was paid compensation in lieu of notice. But it is the case of the appellants-management that they complied with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and paid him the retrenchment compensation. There is no finding recorded by the Labour Court on this aspect. There is no observation on this point in the order passed in the writ petition. We are also of the view that the Labour Court has granted the relief which is not sought for in the petition in directing to absorption of the workman. 9. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge and also the Labour Court and remand the matter to the file of the Labour Court to decide the issue whether there was compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act or not and pass orders thereon in accordance with law. Since it is stated that the workman has been re-engaged as NMR worker in the 1st appellant office, his services may be continued if he is continuing as such. 10. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. In view of the orders passed in this writ appeal, nothing survives in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ____________________ Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J Dated: 15-10-2009 Nrg. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}