THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 26400 OF 1999 Dated: 23.12.2010 Between: B.Jagga Rao and others ..... PETITIONERS AND The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 26400 OF 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the common order dated 12.08.1999 in I.D.Nos. 26, 19, 23, 29, 28 and 25 of 1997 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and to quash the same. The above said petitions were filed by the writ petitioners under Section 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the I.D. Act’) contending that the alleged action of the 1st respondent Corporation in terminating the services of the petitioners without paying any retrenchment compensation and without issuing the notice as required under Section 25-F of the I.D.Act, is arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction for reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service. It was claimed by the petitioners before the labour Court that they were appointed as Mechanics and Helpers following due process of selection on consolidated pay. Challenging the termination of their services, they filed W.P.No.12233 of 1993 in which this Court passed an interim order dated 25.08.1993 directing the respondents to continue the petitioners in service. Subsequently, the main writ petition was closed on 08.10.1993. However, since the respondents did not take the petitioners into service, they were constrained to file W.P.No.18637 of 1994 seeking a direction for appointment as Light Motor Vehicle Drivers or in any other suitable posts. The said writ petition was dismissed in view of Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (for short, ‘Act 2 of 1994). Against the said order, the petitioners preferred Writ Appeal No.48 of 1995, which was dismissed by order dated 09.02.1995 with liberty to the petitioners to approach the labour Court. So far as merits of the case, it was pleaded that they worked continuously as Helpers and Mechanics from 1990 to 1993 and that the nature of the work done by them was perennial in nature. It was contended that since they had worked for more than 240 days continuously in a calendar year with the 2nd respondent Corporation and that P.F. Contributions and Insurance were also deducted from their salaries, the action of the Corporation in terminating their services without following the provisions of Section 25-F and Section 25-FF of the I.D.Act, was arbitrary and illegal. On behalf of the Corporation/Management counters were filed denying the allegations made by the petitioners and stating that the petitioners were appointed on consolidated pay for the period from 07.04.1990 to 07.04.1991. Though their services were extended thereafter up to 31.01.1993, it was only on a contract basis. It was explained that the contract was not renewed thereafter since it was decided by the Corporation to do away with the system of engaging Helpers and instead to train its own workmen as Mechanics. It was also stated that in fact there was no place at the Corporation premises for undertaking repairs and therefore, the request of the workmen to reengage them in terms of the interim directions in W.P.No.12233 of 1993 could not be acceded to. So far as the contention that the petitioners worked for more than 240 days and the P.F. contributions, insurance and etc., were deducted from their salaries was concerned, it was contended that since their services were engaged only on contract basis for a fixed period, the mere fact that the statutory deductions were made was of no consequence. While stating that the contract was not renewed on its expiry since there was no work with the Corporation requiring their services, it was contended by the Corporation/Management that the petitions for reinstatement were misconceived. On the basis of the pleadings, the labour Court formulated the following points for consideration: “1. Whether the workmen are entitled reinstatement as they worked for more than 240 days and entitled to back wages and continuity of service ? 2. Whether the plea taken by the respondent management that they were only appointed on contract basis and by virtue of statutory rules framed by the Government of A.P., they cannot be taken into service and not entitled to the reliefs is to be accepted in denying the relief to the workmen ? 3. To what relief the workmen are entitled ?” Both the workmen as well as the Management adduced oral and documentary evidence to substantiate their respective claims. On appreciation of the evidence available on record, the labour Court recorded a finding on point No.1 that even though the workmen worked for more than 240 days with the management, since their appointment was only on temporary basis for a particular period of contract, they cannot be treated as workmen entitled for protection under the I.D.Act and therefore, they were not entitled to reinstatement with back wages. So far as point No.2 is concerned, it was held that the management had fully established that the workmen had worked with it only on contract basis for a particular period of work and their services were liable to be terminated by virtue of the statutory provisions under Act 2 of 1994. Thus, a Nil Award was passed on 12.08.1999 holding that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief. The said award dated 12.08.1999 is under challenge in the present writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. As could be seen from the order under challenge, the evidence adduced by the parties both oral and documentary was referred to in detail and on appreciation of the said evidence particularly the staff structure of the corporation under G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 08.07.1994, a clear finding was recorded that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis initially for a period of one year and subsequently, it was extended for a total period of 3 ½ years and thereafter, there was no further extension. It was also found that after rationalisation of the staff structure of the Corporation, the staff pattern did not include Mechanics and Helpers. The labour Court had also taken into consideration the evidence on behalf of the Corporation that the initial appointment of the petitioners through contractors was on experimental basis and that subsequently it was decided by the Corporation to train their own employees as Mechanics and thus, there was no requirement to engage the petitioners through contractors. Having carefully gone through the impugned order as well as the other material placed before this Court, I am satisfied that the finding recorded by the labour Court that the petitioners were engaged only on contract basis for a fixed period is based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The finding that the Corporation/Management had decided to impart the practical training to its own employees to enable them to attend to the repairs and maintenance work of its Motor Vehicles and therefore, there was no need to engage the services of the experienced Mechanics on contract basis was also supported by the evidence available on record. Such findings of fact recorded by the labour Court, which are supported by evidence warrant no interference by this Court in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since it is clear that it is not a case of termination in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D.Act, the conclusion of the labour Court that the petitioners are not entitled to reinstatement as sought by them cannot be held to be erroneous on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 23.12.2010 Ivd