HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION No. 6606 OF 2000 Thursday, the Nineteenth day of August Two Thousand and Ten Between The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam Area, Karimnagar District. Petitioner AND The Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Chandra Vihar Buildings, M.J. Road, Hyderabad and another Respondents ORAL ORDER: The Award dated 28.6.1999 passed in I.D.No.32 of 1998 by the first respondent Tribunal allowing the petition filed under Sec.10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act holding that the respondent herein is entitled to continuity of service and fixation of pay and also treating the period from the date of termination till the date of reporting as General Mazdoor as leave on loss of pay, is assailed in this writ petition. The second respondent herein, which is an Association, is espousing the cause of the workman Sri K.Viswanadham. He was appointed as Badli Filler in the petitioner company on 1.10.1985 and was promoted as Driver on 9.8.1987. While so, during the course of employment, as he met with an accident on 7.12.1987 and lost vision of his right eye, he was re-appointed as General Mazdoor Category-I with effect from 13.1.1989. It is his case that though the pay and service were protected in respect of similarly placed employees, the said benefit was not extended to him, which is arbitrary and discriminatory. It is his further case that the petitioner herein did not consider his representation for pay protection and the Government referred the dispute pursuant to the orders in W.P. No.30054 of 1997. It is pleaded by the petitioner herein before the first respondent that the reference is not maintainable inasmuch as the employment is governed by the terms of contract and the petitioner has no locus standi to espouse the cause of the workman. It is their case that the contract came to an end on 6.8.1988 when the workman was declared as medically unfit to work as driver. The second respondent Association submitted representation dated 14.8.1995 to the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central) and a report was sent by the Conciliation Officer and since the Govt. of India refused to send the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, the workman filed writ petition which was allowed. Hence, the reference was made. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the workman, he himself was examined as WW-1 and Exs. W-1 to W-7 were marked. On behalf of the Management – petitioner herein, one witness was examined as MW-1 and Exs. M-1 to M-11 were marked. The Tribunal, on consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that since the accident had occurred during the course of employment and the workmen was declared as medically unfit to hold the post of Driver, the petitioner herein is not justified in denying continuity of service through justified in rejecting pay protection and grant of increments. Consequently, the workman was granted continuity of service and fixation of pay for the purpose of terminal benefits. It further directed that the period from the date of termination till the date of reporting as General Mazdoor shall be treated as leave on loss of pay. Aggrieved by the said Award, the Management i.e. the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition, though accepted by the workman. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Labour and learned counsel for the second respondent. Though reliance is sought to be placed on Ex.M-4, Settlement/ agreement, the first respondent Tribunal has rightly found that the same is not applicable to the workman. The second respondent herein has relied on Exs. W-5 to W-7 in support of the claim that the workman is entitled to pay protection and continuity of service. Ex.W-6 is the office order dated 1/10.7/94 in respect of one E.Peddulu, who worked as Tammer in Godavarikhani 5 incline and was appointed afresh as General Mazdoor Category-I when he was found medically unfit due to fracture of leg and was given pay protection and continuity of service. Ex.W-7 is the office order dated 31.7.1994 relating to one M.Narasaiah, Coal Filler, Godavarikhani 8 incline, who was declared unfit on health grounds but fit for surface job, as such, he was appointed as General Mazdoor Category – I and given pay protection and continuity of service for the purpose of terminal benefits, in terms of para 2 of Ex.M-5, implementation instructions. Ex.W-5 is the office order dated 3/4-2-1997 relating to one K.Gopaiah, Badli Filler, Godavarikhani 7(LF) P, who was declared medically unfit for underground job after meeting with a mine accident, but declared fit for surface job, as such, he was appointed General Mazdoor Category – I with protection of wages and continuity of service. As observed by the first respondent Tribunal, Exs. W-5 to W- 7 office orders are subsequent to Ex.M-4 Agreement but they are in terms of the implementation instructions Exs. M-5 and M-6. Adverting to the case of the workman, he has met with an accident and lost vision in the right eye and he accepted alternative appointment of General Mazdoor Category – I, in terms of Ex.M-2 terms and conditions of appointment, which is, admittedly, prior to Ex. M-4 Settlement. Therefore, the first respondent Tribunal is right in holding that the workman cannot claim the implementation of Ex.M-4 Settlement. However, the denial of benefit to the workman –WW-1 by the petitioner is not justified in view of the fact that under Ex. W-7 M.Narasaiah, who was declared unfit on health grounds, was given the benefit of continuity of service for terminal benefits, inasmuch as WW-1, the workmen, met with an accident and lost vision in one of his eyes and fit for the alternative employment. In view of these facts, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, which are akin to those raised before the first respondent Tribunal, cannot be countenanced. When the benefit of continuity of service was extended to similarly situated employees by the petitioner – Management, the workman i.e. WW-1 cannot be denied the same for terminal benefits. Having gone through the order impugned, I do not find any justifiable reason warranting interference Consequently, the writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed confirming the Award impugned. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari August 19, 2010 MAS