IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12515 of 1999 Between: 1 M/s Hindustan Petrolium Corporation Ltd., Rep.by its Chief Regional Manager. 130 & 131/1,S.D.Road,Secunderabad, 2 The Manager (Instalation) Hindustan Petrolium Corporation Ltd., PB.No.1913,Sanathangar,Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal-I Rep.by its Chairman. 1st Floor,Chandravihar, M.J.Road,Hyderabad, 2 Shaik Karimulla, s/o Shaik Dadapeer H.No.B-41/713,Asbestas Colony, Balanagar, Hyderabad. 3 The Union of India,Rep.by its Secretary(Labourt) Ministry of Labourt, New Delhi. .....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 to issue notice, call for records, quash and set aside the Award made in I.D.No.67 of 1997 dt. 21/12/98 on the ﬁle of the Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Order or direction as the Hon'ble Court deens ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case and to allow the writ Petition with costs. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.NAGESWAR SREE Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.WILLIAM BURRA The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY W.P.No.12515 of 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, questioning the validity of award dated 21- 12-1998 passed in I.D.No.67 of 1997 by the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad. 2. The second respondent-workman was appointed in the month of March, 1993 as casual worker in Sanathnagar Bulk Plant of the petitioner. Initially, he was paid wages at the rate of Rs.81/- per day, on the actual days, he has worked. He worked as such, up to 20-10-1995, and from the said date onwards, his services were disengaged. Questioning his disengagement and alleging that the same would amount to retrenchment in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the I.D. Act’), a dispute was raised on his behalf. The matter was ultimately referred by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, vide proceedings dated 17-10-1997 under Section 10(1)(d) and sub Section (2A) of the I.D.Act, which reads as under: “Whether the action of the management of M/s. H.P.C.L., Sanathnagar, Hyderabad in terminating the services of Shri Kareemulla without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act is justiﬁed? If not , to what relief, is the workman concerned entitled?” 3. After reference, the dispute was numbered as I.D.No. 67 of 1997 before the Industrial Tribunal-I, at Hyderabad. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the workman-second respondent was examined as WW.1 and on his behalf, Exs.W.1 to W.8 were marked, and on behalf of the petitioner-management, MW.1 was examined and Ex.M.1 was marked. The Industrial Tribunal, by considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the second respondent-workman has worked continuously for a period of 240 days in a calendar year, and his services were retrenched without following due procedure as contemplated under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, and therefore, it has ordered for reinstatement of the workman into service, with back wages and all attendant benefits. 4. In this writ petition, the only argument advanced by the learned counsel for petitioners is that even according to the case of the second respondent-workman before the Tribunal, he was appointed as a casual worker in the Sanathnagar Bulk Plant. Having regard to the exigency of work, his services were being utilized as and when required. It is submitted that since the 2nd respondent was not engaged in all the working days, the Tribunal has erred in awarding full back wages to him. 5. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for second respondent, Sri William Burra, that the evidence on record clearly shows that the second respondent-workman was engaged for maximum number of working days in a year, and in that view of the matter, the Tribunal has correctly awarded the back wages. It is further submitted that as the retrenchment of the second respondent-workman itself was in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, he was entitled for award of back wages, which was rightly granted by the Tribunal in the impugned award. In this regard, he has placed reliance on a decision reported in Mohan Lal Vs. Management of M/s.Bharath Electronics Ltd.,[1] 6. In view of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel as referred above, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal below is correct in awarding full back wages to the second respondent-workman while ordering for reinstatement. 7. In normal course, when the retrenchment is illegal, workman is to be awarded back wages. But however, the quantum of back wages to be awarded would depend on the nature of work which he was doing, and the nature of service for which he was appointed etc. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the second-respondent-workman was appointed as casual worker to work in Sanathnagar Bulk Plant of the petitioner Corporation. Having regard to the evidence on record, the Tribunal, in Paragraph 16 of the award, clearly recorded that the 2nd respondent has worked for only 251 days during the year 1993-94, and for 284 days during the year 1994-95, and for 108 days during the year 1995-96 i.e. from April, 1995 to October,1995. From the said evidence on record, it is clear that the 2nd respondent was not provided with casual job in all working days in a month, and in the period immediately preceding the retrenchment order, if the work load is taken into account, it appears, he was not even engaged for half of the days during the period from April,1995 to October,1995. Even in the earlier year of 1994-95 also, he was not engaged in all working days. It is a normal practice, which can be taken note of by this court that such kind of workmen are engaged having regard to the requirement and number of absentees of the regular employees on a particular date. Though reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the second respondent in the case of Mohan Lal Vs. Management of M/s. Bharath Electronics Ltd., (supra), the same is a case where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has examined the retrenchment of a person, who was appointed on temporary basis. Here is a case, where the second respondent was not even appointed on temporary basis but he was appointed only on casual basis. In that view of the matter, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case relied on by the learned counsel for the second respondent, would not render any assistance to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. While taking into account the evidence on record, particularly, what is referred to in paragraph 16 of the award, I deem it is a ﬁt case, where the second respondent-workman is to be awarded only 50% of back wages, but not full back wages, as awarded by the Tribunal. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the relief granted by the Tribunal below with regard to reinstatement of 2 nd respondent with continuity of service, is conﬁrmed. But however, with regard to awarding of back wages, the award is modiﬁed to the extent that the second respondent-workman is entitled to only 50% of back wages for the period for which he was not on duty. In all other respects, the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. 9. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is allowed-in- part. No order as to costs. _________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J 29-08-2008 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SAM} [1] (1981) 3 SCC 225