THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.19318 of 1998 Date 30-01-2008 Between: The Principal Secretary to Govt. I & CAD Dept. Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. ..... PETITIONERS AND Mrs.K.Haripriya & another. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.19318 of 1998 O R D E R: Aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur in I.D.Nos.219 of 1995 & 20 of 1996 dated 17-01- 1997, the present writ petition is filed. While I.D.No.219 of 1995 was directly filed under Section 2- A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’), I.D.No.20 of 1996 was on the basis of a reference made by the Government, under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act, vide proceedings dated 20-06-1996. The questions referred for adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court were whether the first respondent, an Ex-typist, on consolidated wages, was justified in requesting for reinstatement and regularization of her services in the Irrigation Department in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22-04-1994 and if not, to what relief she was entitled to? On a detailed analysis of the evidence on record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the first respondent had put in more than 240 days of service in the 12 month period preceding her termination and that termination of her services was contrary to Section 25-F of the Act. The Labour Court also placed reliance on the proceedings of the Government regularizing the services of some Job typists, wherein persons at Sl.Nos.2 to 8 were juniors to the first respondent. Before the Labour Court, the first respondent examined herself as WW.1 and marked Exs.W.1 to W.47. On behalf of the employer, One Sri S.Venkatacharyulu was examined as MW.1 and Exs.M.1 and M.2 were marked. The Labour Court relied on Ex.W.34, a copy of G.O.RT.No1267, dated 07-11-1994, wherein one Sri A.Madhuranath, Job-typist, was shown at Sl.No.6 and styled as NMR and that, in Ex.W.47, his date of appointment was noted as 13-06-1997. The Labour Court held that though he was junior to the first respondent, his services were considered for regularisation as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22-04-1994. The Labour Court held that the first respondent was also entitled for consideration of her services rendered under the third respondent for the purpose of regularization. The Labour Court answered the reference holding that the request of the first respondent herein for reinstatement and regularization of her services in the Irrigation Department, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22-04-1994, was justified. An award was passed setting aside the termination and the petitioners herein (respondents 3 and 4 in I.D.) were directed to reinstate the first respondent herein into service with continuity of service and consequential benefits including seniority and back wages. Learned Government Pleader for Irrigation would question the award of the Labour Court on merits and contend that the findings recorded are erroneous. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the first respondent was engaged as a Job-typist and that she was not entitled for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22-04- 1994. It is well settled that this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not sit in appeal over findings of fact recorded by the Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts nor would it re- appreciate the evidence on record to come to a conclusion different from that of the Labour Court. It is only when the findings recorded are perverse or are based on no evidence or where the award suffers from a patent error of law apparent on the face of the record would interference be justified. It cannot be said that the award of the Labour Court suffers from any such infirmity necessitating interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________ 30-01-2008 usd​