IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 27309 of 2008 Between: M/s.Jey Key Engineering Works D.No.18-136 Gudivada Appanna Nagar Mindi Post Visakhapatnam 12, Rep.by its Proprietor G.Koteswara Rao S/o. Israel ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Addl Labour Court Cum Industrial Tribunal Visakhapatnam 2 Mr Dokka Tirupathi Rao S/o Rama Murthy D.No.18-20-24 Dairy Colony Pedanadupuru Sivaru Pedagantyada(Post) Visakhapatnam-44 .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of Certiorari by calling for records in ID No.147 of 2004 and declare the Award dt 13/6/2007 published vide G.O.Rt No.1802 dt 4/08/2007 on the notice board on 12/09/2007 on the file of Industrial Tribunal-Cum Labour Court Visakhapatnam as null void and illegal and consequently quash the impugned Award or otherwise the petitioner herein will suffer grave and irreparable loss. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.HARI HARAN Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: - The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.27309 of 2008 Order: Assailing the award, dated 13.06.2007, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in I.D.No.147 of 2004, directing the petitioner-Management to pay an amount of Rs.14,170/- to the second respondent herein as retrenchment compensation within 30 days from the date of notification of the award and in default, to pay the same with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., till the date of payment, the petitioner-Management filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Management mainly contends that the Labour Court ought to have seen that the second respondent has failed to substantiate his claim that he was orally terminated on 26.03.2004 by the petitioner-Management. He further contends that the Labour Court also failed to see that there is no evidence on record to show that the second respondent had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the alleged termination from service, and therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-Management and the learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing for the first respondent, and perused the award of the Labour Court. The parameters and scope of judicial review of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorari are limited to – firstly to correct errors of jurisdiction when the inferior Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess or fails to exercise it, secondly to correct errors of law apparent on the face of the record, and thirdly to correct and interfere with the findings that are based on suspicion, conjectures or surmises or no reason. The law is well settled that this Court does not act as an appellate authority and reappraise the evidence, while exercising Certiorari jurisdiction. In the light of these parameters, the impugned award of the Labour Court may be examined. A perusal of the impugned award, passed by the Labour Court, would clearly indicate that the Labour Court having considered the matter in the light of the evidence available on record, found that the petitioner herein failed to establish that the termination of the 2nd respondent was due to expiry of contract. Finding so, it held that the 2nd respondent was a contract labour, and since the contract of the petitioner with the principal was continuous, it held that the claim of the 2nd respondent that he was working with the petitioner right from 1996 till 26.03.2004 with a break of eight months during 2002, has to be accepted, and his termination from service, being one without assigning any reasons, his termination should be treated as “retrenchment”, and thereby the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are attracted. Even though the Labour Court found as such, but having regard to the fact that the 2nd respondent faced criminal charges and there was strained relationship between the 2nd respondent and the petitioner, the Labour Court instead of ordering reinstatement of the 2nd respondent into service, passed the impugned award directing the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs.14,170/- as retrenchment compensation to the 2nd respondent, and I see no reason whatsoever to interfere therewith. The award of the Labour Court, judged from the parameters of Certiorari jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not call for any interference, for the petitioner failed to point out any infirmities in the impugned award. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 16.12.2008 VGB