IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 5377 of 1999 Between: Smt. Anu Mathai W/o late K.N. Mathai, Mineral Exploration Corporartion Limited, Area Office, Bandlaguda, R.R.District. R/o 5-4-506, Kattalamandi, Nampally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sr.Manager(Drilling), Miniral Exploration Corporation Ltd., Regional Maintainance Centre, Bandlaguda, R.R.District. 2 The Cheif Manager (Pers. Admns) Miniral Exploration Corporation Ltd., Seminary Hills, Nagpur-440 006. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus 1. to quash the letter No.4755/MEC/RMC/98-99 dated 9-3-1999 passed by the 1st respondent herein as illegal, null, void without jurisdiction and without following the due procedure. 2. to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service till petitioner claims for the employment on compassionate grounds in the respondents are duly adjudicated by this Hon'ble Court. 3.to regularise Petitioner in service in the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Respondents-Organisation on right from the date of my temporary appointment in 1988 on compassionate grounds as per the existing Rules. 4. to pay salary and allowances a per the normal pay scales of pay as are applocable to the other employees carrying similar post of Lawer Division Clerk or in the alternative from 10-8-1990 when the respondent held interview for recuritment of the post of LDC duly affording me the seniority and other consequential benefits Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SHAIK ANWAR PASHA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.NAGESWAR SREE The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.4755/MEC/RMC/98-99 dated 9.3.1999 issued by first respondent as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service. It appears, under the impugned proceedings, the services of the petitioner were terminated after following the provisions of Section 25- F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by paying one month’s salary in lieu of notice period and compensation as required under Section 25- F(b) of the Act along with gratuity etc. When the petitioner refused to receive the said benefits, the same were sent through registered post and the petitioner acknowledged the same. It is the case of the petitioner that though she has completed more than 10 years of service, she was terminated from service while retaining her juniors. This Court initially granted interim order for a period of two months and later the same was vacated, and thereafter the same was the subject matter of Writ Appeal and the said Writ Appeal was dismissed. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the allegations made by the petitioner and asserting that the petitioner was paid one month’s salary in lieu of notice period as well as compensation as required under Section 25-F(b) of the I.D. Act, therefore, the respondents have not committed any illegality in terminating the services of the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that an amount of Rs.42,000/- was paid to the petitioner towards one month’s salary in lieu of notice period and retrenchment compensation as well as gratuity. Though the petitioner refused to receive the said benefits, but on sending the same through registered post, she has received the same. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the respondents have followed the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act while terminating the services of the petitioner. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. However, the respondents are obligated to consider for engaging the petitioner as per Section 25-G and H of the I.D. Act as and when vacancies arise in the organization. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 4.3.2008 DA