IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.18278 of 2001 Between: 1 The District Manager, A.P.State Housing Corporation Ltd., Udyog Bhavan, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam. 2 The District Collector and Executive Director, A.P.State Housing Corporation Ltd., Visakhapatnam. 3 The Managing Director, A.P.State Housing Corporation Ltd., Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Mr. P.Peter Samuel Raju, Ex-Technical Work Inspector, D-No.7-52, High School Road, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam-530 026. 2 The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned Award in I.D.No.53 of 98 on the file of the Hon'ble Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, dt: 12-7-2000 and quash the said award declaring as illegal and unconstitutional in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.V.CH.NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR. J. RAMA CHANDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.18278 OF 2001 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against an award, dated 12.07.2000, made in I.D.No.53 of 1998 on the file of the 2n d respondent- Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. Petitioners are the management and 1st respondent is the workman. It appears, on the allegations of misbehavior and disobedience towards his superiors, the services of the 1st respondent, who was working as Technical Work Inspector with the A.P. State Housing Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’), were terminated with effect from 10.11.1993, without issuing any notice and without conducting any enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st respondent raised a dispute in I.D.No.53 of 1998, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the I.D. Act’) before the 2nd respondent- Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, seeking reinstatement into service with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits etc. Before the Labour Court, the 1st respondent examined himself as W.W.1 and got marked documents Exs.W1 to W21. On behalf of the petitioner-management, M.W.1 was examined and documents Exs.M1 to M6 were marked. After detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the Labour Court held that termination of the services of the 1st respondent, without issuing any prior notice or without conducting any enquiry into the allegations leveled against him, is against the A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited Employees’ Service Rules. It was further held that the procedure, as contemplated under Rule 45 (5) of the said Rules for initiating disciplinary action against an employee, also has not been followed. Ultimately, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that termination of the services of the 1st respondent is arbitrary and illegal and, accordingly, passed the impugned award, setting aside the termination order and ordering reinstatement of the 1st respondent with continuity of service, but without any backwages and other financial benefits. Aggrieved thereby, the management preferred this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner-management strenuously contended that on account of his misbehaviour and disobedience towards the superiors, the services of the 1st respondent were sought to be terminated. Since he was engaged on daily wage basis only, the question of issuing any notice and conducting any enquiry into the misconduct alleged does not arise. There is no necessity of following the Service Rules of the Corporation or the provisions of the I.D. Act and issuing any prior notice or paying any compensation in lieu of notice. Therefore, the termination of the services of the 1st respondent cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal. The Labour Court did not consider the matter in proper perspective and erred in passing the impugned award ordering reinstatement of the 1st respondent by holding that the termination of the services of the 1st respondent is illegal. Apart from that, awarding reinstatement with continuity of service in a case of daily wage employee is not proper. Thus, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent- workman supported the award passed by the Labour Court and stated that the termination of the services of the 1st respondent, without issuing any notice and without conducting any enquiry into the allegations levelled against him, is atrocious and unknown to the procedure laid down under the law. There is no illegality in the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and no interference is necessitated. In fact, the Labour Court ought to have awarded backwages also. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suffice to notice that the termination order was passed without issuing any notice or payment of compensation in lieu of notice, as required under Section 25-N of the Act. The case of the management is that the workman was only a daily wage employee and, hence, there is no necessity of following any procedure. I am of the opinion that this approach made by the management is illegal. Further, no enquiry was conducted into the misconduct alleged against the workman. When the services of the workman were sought to be terminated on certain allegations, he should have been afforded an opportunity of offering his explanation on the said allegations. But, the same was not followed by the management and, thus, the Labour Court was right in holding the termination of the services of the workman as illegal. The impugned award does not suffer from any infirmities calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 29th April, 2008. IBL To 1 The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. 2 Two CD Copies