THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.2843 of 2002 ORDER: The 2nd respondent filed I.D.No.106 of 1995 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, challenging the alleged oral termination of his services by the petitioners. He pleaded that initially he was engaged as a Gang Mazdoor from 0.01.1986 to 31.12.1989, and thereafter, from 03.04.1990, till he was orally terminated. According to him, he was being paid wages as per S.S.R. rates and he was terminated without issuing any notice and without paying retrenchment compensation. The petitioners opposed the I.D. They pleaded that the 2nd respondent was never appointed by them and there is nothing on record to prove his contention. Through its award, dated 29.06.1999, the Tribunal, directed reinstatement of the 2nd respondent, but without any back wages and other attendant benefits. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the said award. Heard learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings, for the petitioners. The 2nd respondent has not entered appearance. The principal ground on which the petitioners opposed the I.D. was that the 2nd respondent was not employed by them at all. The latter filed certain documents before the Labour Court. They included the attendance register maintained by the then Works Inspector and the deposition of the Works Inspector in I.D.No.149 of 995. The deposition- Ex.W.5 was to the effect that the original of attendance and acquaintance registers were filed into the Labour Court in connection with different cases. One strong circumstance that existed in favour of the 2nd respondent was, one averment made by the petitioners herein in their counter-affidavit filed in W.P.No.7156 of 1994. The 2nd respondent approached this Court by filing that writ petition before he raised the industrial dispute. In the counter-affidavit filed in that writ petition, the petitioners herein, who figured as respondents therein, admitted that they engaged the 2nd respondent for their works. With that, the plea of the petitioners that they never engaged the 2nd respondent, stands belied. The Labour Court took this and other important aspects into account and granted the relief. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the award. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.22.12.2010. GJ