THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO: 5903 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award made in I.D.No.100 of 2003 dated 10.11.2005 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner herein is the management and the first respondent herein is the workman. The first respondent was appointed as a technical supervisor with the petitioner-management, namely, Docking & Engineering Co., (Visakhapatnam) Pvt. Limited, with effect from 7.08.2002 on consolidated salary of Rs.4,700/- per month. On 11.07.2003 he was terminated from service on the ground that his services are no longer required, as the work orders were completed, and was directed to collect the salary as well as the one month notice pay. The first respondent did not receive the payment, and challenged the termination order stating that the same is in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) by way of an Industrial Dispute under Section 2A (2) of the Act before the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner-management resisted the claim of the first respondent, firstly on the ground that the first respondent is a supervisor and therefore he is not a workman within the purview of the Act. Secondly, since the work has been completed, the first respondent was found to be surplus and he was removed from service by serving Ex.W.1 notice and he was paid the salary and one month noticed pay in lieu of service compensation. Before the Tribunal on behalf of the workman, the first respondent examined himself as WW.1 and Exs.W.1 to W.5 were marked. On behalf of the management, MW.1 was examined and Exs.M.1 and M.2 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire evidence available on record, the Tribunal categorically held that the oral and documentary evidence placed on record would make it clear that the first respondent though designated as Junior Supervisor, he was not entrusted with any supervisory duties or managerial or administrative powers over other workers. But actually he was entrusted with specific works. Therefore, he is a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Act. Further, there was no dispute as to the fact that the first respondent had worked for more than 240 days and no notice of any kind was issued. The Tribunal held that the termination order is invalid and the first respondent is entitled to reinstatement. Holding so, the Tribunal directed petitioner-management to reinstate the workman with continuity of service with half of back-wages. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner-management. Learned counsel for the petitioner-management strenuously contended that the first respondent is a Junior Supervisor and he has been submitting reports to the management as to the work executed by the workers under his supervision. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first respondent is not a supervisor and he was only a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. Even assuming that the first respondent is a workman, the award passed by the Tribunal directing the petitioner-management to pay half of the back- wages, is not supported by any evidence on record as to the non- employment of the workman. Though the Tribunal recorded that there is no evidence and no pleadings, but however, granted half of the back wages, which is arbitrary and illegal. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent supported the award passed by the Tribunal and pleaded that no ground is made out by the petitioner- management calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 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 available on record. There was absolutely no evidence let in by the petitioner- management to show that the first respondent was attending to any supervisory or managerial duties. Though MW.1 spoke something that the first respondent was a supervisor, no details as such were furnished as to how many workers worked under him and what exactly are the duties entrusted to him. Under those circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly came to the conclusion that the first respondent though designated as Junior Supervisor he was not entrusted with any supervisory or managerial duties over the other workers. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the first respondent is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act cannot be found fault with. The other finding that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were not scrupulously followed, and therefore the termination order passed by the petitioner-management is invalid, also cannot be found fault with since they are all admitted facts. The only point to be examined is whether the Tribunal is right in awarding half of the back wages without there being any plea or evidence to show that the first respondent was not employed from the date of termination or during the pendency of the dispute before the Tribunal. The finding recorded by the Tribunal while awarding back wages, reads as under. “With regard to back wages, there is no plea or evidence on either side as to whether the workman was employed anywhere else, in order to disentitle him from claiming back wages. But at the same time this Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner did not come up with any specific plea that he was not employed anywhere and he remained unemployed without any source of income all these two years. Taking into consideration these circumstances, in my view, it would be just and proper that the petitioner workman is entitled for half of back wages only, with continuity of service. Accordingly, this point is answered.” From the above, it is clear that granting of half of back wages while ordering reinstatement of the first respondent- workman with continuity of service is without any basis. Absolutely there was no pleading or evidence has been let in on behalf of the first respondent-workman to show that he was not employed during the pendency of the dispute before the Tribunal. Under those circumstances, while upholding the award to the extent of ordering reinstatement with continuity of service of the first respondent-workman, awarding of half of back wages is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of holding that the first respondent-workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits but without any back wages. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (C.V. RAMULU, J.) 9th June, 2010 Js.