THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.6448 OF 2007 DATED _____OCTOBER, 2010 BETWEEN Challa Seshaiah … Petitioner And The Commissioner, Narsaraopet Municipality, Narsaraopet, Guntur District, and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.6448 OF 2007 O R D E R The Nil Award dated 10.04.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Guntur, in I.D.No.283 of 2001 is called in question by the unsuccessful petitioner therein. The petitioner claims to have joined the Narsaraopet Municipality as a Typist in the year 1993. His case is that after working continuously, he was terminated from service on 01.04.1997. This termination is alleged to have been effected in violation of Sections 25- F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1947’). He therefore invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, Guntur, under Section 2-A(2) of the Act of 1947 by way of the subject I.D. The respondent Municipality filed its counter before the Labour Court stating that the petitioner had approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A.No.5887 of 2000 seeking regularization of his services as a Typist. The Municipality further pointed out that the petitioner’s services had been engaged on contract basis for specific periods and denied his claim. The Municipality however remained absent at the hearing of the case. The Labour Court being of the opinion that the petitioner, having already approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal twice in O.A.Nos.5887 of 2000 and 7000 of 1997 after his removal from service, was not entitled to agitate the issue once again before it. On the ground of maintainability the Labour Court held against the petitioner and dismissed the I.D. Hence, this writ petition. Before this Court it is contended by the petitioner that the issue for consideration before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal was altogether different from the one raised before the Labour Court in the subject I.D. The petitioner pointed out that there was no decision on merits by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal so as to bring into operation the doctrine of res judicata. He therefore assailed the Nil Award on the ground that it suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record. In its counter filed before this Court, the Municipality reiterated the stand taken by it before the Labour Court to the effect that the petitioner was engaged on contract basis for specific periods to attend to fair copying work. Reference was made once again to the cases filed by the petitioner before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, which culminated in a direction to the Municipality to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment to the post of Typist as per Rules. This direction led to the passing of the order dated 13.09.2001 by the Regional Director-cum-Appellate Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Guntur, rejecting the case of the petitioner. The Municipality therefore sought to support the conclusion of the Labour Court that the petitioner could not once again agitate the issue by way of the instant proceedings. In his reply, the petitioner denied the averments made by the Municipality in its counter. He specifically disputed the contention that his services were engaged on contract basis and for specific periods. He asserted that there was no contract of employment stipulating that he would be employed only for a fixed period and reiterated that he worked as a Typist in the Municipality from 16.05.1993 to 31.03.1997. He therefore asserted that the Labour Court erred in not entertaining his petition. Heard both sides. The specific case of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that his services had been retrenched in violation of the conditions prescribed in Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. His further complaint was that his juniors had been retained in service in this process, thereby violating Section 25-G of the Act of 1947 also. While so, the only aspect that seems to have weighed with the Labour Court was that the petitioner had approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal earlier and on this basis, the Labour Court opined that he could not agitate the issue again before it. This approach on the part of the Labour Court completely lost sight of the fact that the issue raised by the petitioner before it was with regard to violation of the provisions of the Act of 1947 and had nothing to do with his claim for regularization of his services in the Municipality, which was the subject matter of the cases before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, this claim of the petitioner had to be independently adjudicated on evidence. On what basis the petitioner was engaged by the Municipality, the number of days he worked in the twelve months prior to his termination from service and whether the defence put-forth by the Municipality to defeat his claim warranted acceptance were the issues that had to be examined and evaluated by the Labour Court. The further issue as to whether the petitioner’s juniors were retained while terminating him from service, thereby violating Section 25-G of the Act of 1947, would have also arisen consequent upon the findings on the earlier issues. The bald rejection of the petitioner’s claim by the Labour Court in dismissing the subject I.D. on the wholly inapplicable technical ground of maintainability therefore manifests a patent error in exercise of jurisdiction by the Labour Court. The impugned Award dated 10.04.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Guntur, in ID.No.283 of 2001 is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the said Court for trial and adjudication afresh. As the matter has been kept pending for nearly a decade, it is in the interest of the parties that the issue is settled expeditiously. The Labour Court, Guntur, is therefore directed to give priority to this case and dispose of the same within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above direction, but in the circumstances of the case, with no order as to costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J ______OCTOBER, 2010 PGS (P.D.) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.6448 OF 2007 DATED _____OCTOBER, 2010