THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.21120 of 2001 ORDER: The Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings Division, Tenali, Guntur District filed this writ petition seeking writ of certiorari for quashing award passed by the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D.No.23 of 1992 dated 17.10.2000 which was published in G.O.Rt.No.757 Labour Employment Training Factories (LAB-1) Department dated 24.03.2001. The second respondent filed I.D.No.23 of 1992 before the first respondent/Labour Court, Guntur claiming that he joined services of the petitioner as nominal muster roll (NMR) mazdoor at Repalle Sub- Division from 1.11.1979 and worked continuously and that without any reason and without any notice or pay in lieu of notice and without paying compensation his services were orally and illegally terminated with effect from 01.11.1980 by way of retrenchment. He claimed that he was getting wages of Rs.250/- per month. The petitioner contended before the Labour Court that the second respondent worked only for one month during January, 1980 for laying road as nominal muster roll worker and after completion of work, the second respondent left as there was no work and that he was paid Rs.150/- for the work done during that month and that the second respondent is not a permanent employee and that he was engaged on daily wage basis and that there is no guarantee of service promised to the second respondent and that it is not a case of retrenchment. Before the Labour Court the second respondent examined himself as WW1 and on behalf of the petitioner MW1 was examined and Exs.M1 and M2 were marked. After considering the material on record, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the second respondent into service without back wages and without continuity of service, by the impugned award. It is contended by the Government Pleader that the second respondent’s services as mazdoor were taken only for the month of January, 1980 and he was paid his total wages of Rs.150/- for the work done by him during that month and that there is no continuity of service nor promise or guarantee of continuity of service. The Labour Court accepted version of the second respondent to the effect that he worked from 1.11.1979 to 30.11.1980 and his services were terminated orally by the Assistant Engineer on that day. The said finding is contrary to claim of the second respondent. In his application filed under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short “the Act”), the second respondent pleaded that his services were terminated with effect from 01.11.1980 whereas the finding of the Labour Court is to the effect that he worked up to 30.11.1980. The second respondent did not produce any documents to show that he was appointed as nominal muster roll mazdoor or that he was terminated by way of retrenchment. Everything was oral. He was engaged as coolie for laying road for certain period when the Department was executing the work. That will not give him any right of employment under the petitioner. The Labour Court commented that if the petitioner produced muster roll or the Acquittance Register, it would have reflected the second respondent’s claim of work. In fact, the second respondent did not produce any piece of paper before the Labour Court; and on the other hand it was the petitioner who produced Exs.M1 and M2 Fixed Charges Registers from 3/79 to 2/80 and 3/80 to 2/81 covering the period when the second respondent claimed to have worked as nominal muster roll mazdoor. Those Registers show work done by the second respondent during December, 1979 and June, 1980. Even though name of the second respondent was found for January, 1980 also, it does not show payment of wages to him during that month and it denotes that the second respondent did not work during the month of January, 1980. It is the same case in June, 1980 also. The second respondent worked for only one month during December, 1979 and received wages for his work during that month. The question of producing muster roll and Acquittance Register after twelve years may not arise. There will not be any statutory Acquittance Register as such for disbursement of wages to nominal muster roll coolies. There can be only disbursement Register for wages. It would only reflect wages disbursed by the petitioner in accordance with the work charge noted in Exs M1 and M2 work Charge Registers. The petitioner did not suppress any Register and in fact it is the petitioner who produced Exs M1 and M2 Registers showing name of the second respondent in those Registers, even though the second respondent could not produce even a piece of paper in support of his contention. Therefore adverse comment of non production of any Registers against the petitioner is unwarranted. The second respondent approached the Labour Court after twelve years of the alleged termination of his services. The Supreme Court in AJITH SING vs SRIHIND MARKETING CUM PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ANOTHER[1] held that Article 137 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the proceedings under the Act. That does not mean that any industrial dispute can be raised after any length of time. The second respondent did not plead any reasons in his petition before the Labour Court which prevented him from approaching the Labour Court for necessary relief expeditiously. The fact that he did not approach the Labour Court within reasonable time and that there are no reasons for the said inordinate delay of 12 years in approaching the Labour Court, undoubtedly denotes that the second respondent abandoned his claim and that after 12 years he wanted to revive his claim for reasons best known to him. The second respondent is also guilty of laches in not approaching the Labour Court in an expeditious manner. In the circumstances and in the light of evidence let in by both the parties before the Labour Court which is discussed above, this Court finds that disengagement of the second respondent after road laying work at Repalle by the petitioner does not amount to retrenchment as defined in Section 2(oo) of the Act as it falls under exception (bb) contained therein. This Court further finds that the 2nd respondent did not put in continuous service for 240 days in one year prior to his disengagement. Hence, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is unsustainable and is not in accordance with law. In the result, the writ petition is allowed making Rule Nisi absolute and quashing the impugned award passed by the first respondent. No costs. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 01.12.2010 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.21120 of 2001 Dt.01.12.2010 [1] 1999 LIC 1435