IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 736 of 1999 AND WRIT PETITION NO: 1067 OF 1999 WRIT PETITION NO : 736 of 1999 Between: 1 The A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. Rep. by Managing Director, HACA Bhavan, Adjacent to A.I.R., Hyderabad 2 The Assistant Manager, A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation Limited, Sarangapur, Nizamabad Dist. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 A. Srinivasa Reddy (died) per L.Rs. Smt. S.K. Meera Bai, W/o A. Srinivasa Reddy C.o A.P. Jayaprakasa Rao, Advocate, 3-4-206/2, Lingampally, Kachiguda, Hyderabad-27 2 Master A. Preetam Reddy S/o A. Srinivasa Reddy C.o A.P. Jayaprakasa Rao, Advocate, 3-4-206/2, Lingampally, Kachiguda, Hyderabad-27 3 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hyderabad, A.P. .....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 a Writ or order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Award dt: 21-9-1998 in I.D.No.37 of 1996 on the file of the 3rd respondent herein, covered by G.O.Rt.No.2009, Labour Employment Training and Factories (Lab.I) Dept., dt: 16-11- 1998, and published on the Notice Board of the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, on 9-12-1998, and quashing the same as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable; and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR AND WRIT PETITION NO : 1067 of 1999 Between: 1 The A.P.State Seeds Development Corporation Limited, rep. by its Managing Director HACA Bhavan, adjacent to A.I.R A.I.R., Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Manager, A.P.State Seeds Development Corporation Limited, Sarangapur, Nizamabad district. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 K. Ruben s/o. K. Ranjeevarao C/o. A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, Advocate, 3-4-206/2, Lingampally, Kachiguda, Hyderabad-500 027. 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, A.P., Hyderabad. .....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 a Writ or order or direction, calling for the records relating to the Award dated 21-9-1998 in I.D.No.38 of 1996 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein, covered by G.O.RT.No.2009, Labour Employment Training & Factories (Lab.I) Department, dated 16-11-1998, and published on the Notice Board of the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, on 9-12-1998, and quashing the same, as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable, and pass such other orders as it may deem fit. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: Writ Petition No.736 of 1999 is directed against the Award, dated 21-09-1998 passed in I.D.No.37 of 1996, whereas Writ Petition No.1067 of 1999 is directed against the same common award dated 21-09-1998 passed in I.D. No.38 of 1996. I.D. No.37 of 1996 has been instituted by Srinivas Reddy, who died while he was prosecuting in the said I.D. His wife and son, who are the legal representatives, were brought on record and they prosecuted the matter. I.D. No.38 of 1996 has been instituted by the first respondent in W.P. No.1067 of 1999. The common case of both the petitioners in the Industrial Disputes is that they joined as Junior Assistant and Mechanical Helper respectively with the respondent-corporation in the year 1985 and while so on 01st August, 1998, they were both retrenched by the said Corporation without observing and following the procedure contemplated under law and the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, ‘the Act’). It was further asserted that their juniors were retained in the service of the Corporation. After full-fledged enquiry into the matter, the Labour Court has found their retrenchment to be illegal for the failure of the Corporation to comply with the mandatory requirement of payment of retrenchment in terms of Section 25-F of the Act. Therefore, it had ordered for payment of 25% back wages as compensation in I.D.No.37 of 1996, while the petitioner in I.D. No.38 of 1996 has been ordered to be reinstated to duty with 25% of back wages. Petitioner in I.D. No.38 of 1996 has since been reinstated and he has also been paid the compensation as was fixed by the Labour Court, similarly, the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner in I.D. No.37 of 1996 have also been paid the 25% of back wages, which has been determined by the Labour Court. It is not in dispute that the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Act has not been complied with prior to dispensing with or terminating the service of the petitioners in the respective I.Ds. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the finding recorded by the Labour Court in that regard. Hence, the Writ Petitions are dismissed, but, however, without costs. ___________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J. 10th March, 2008. skmr