THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.19333 OF 2005 Dated : 09.04.2010 Between : Y.Ramchander ….. Petitioner a n d The Executive Engineer ….. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.19333 OF 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the workman being aggrieved by the award made in I.D.No.231 of 2001 dated 27.09.2004 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad. For the very same reasons recorded by this Court while dismissing W.P.No.4384 of 2005, which was filed by the management against the very same impugned order, I am of the opinion that when once it is proved that the petitioner-workman had put in more than 240 days of continuous service in a calendar year, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’), are attracted. Section 25-F of the Act reads as under: 25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen: No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until- (a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workmen has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of notice. (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay [for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months ; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government [or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]. Admittedly, no such procedure as contemplated under Section 25-F of the Act has been followed by the management. It appears that the petitioner raised a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) in the year 1997. Ultimately on failure of the conciliation, the matter was reported to the Central Government and the Central Government in turn referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal only in the year 2001. Therefore, no delay can be attributed to the petitioner in referring the matter to the Industrial Tribunal. Thus, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court was not right in just ordering reinstatement of the petitioner-workman as Typist-cum- Clerk temporarily. In fact, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and other attendant benefits. Strictly speaking, the petitioner is also entitled for back wages. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court has not awarded back wages, I am also not inclined to grant any back wages. Hence, it is made clear that, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits, such as, regularization, fixation of pay and other service benefits. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J 9th April, 2010 SUR