HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.16597 of 2000 and WRIT PETITION No.17052 of 2003 Date: October 31, 2011 WRIT PETITION No.16597 of 2000: Between: Md. Salamathulla Khan … Petitioner And 1. The Industrial Tribunal-II, rep. by its Chairman, Hyderabad & 2 others. … Respondents * * * WRIT PETITION No.17052 of 2003: Between: The A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., Represented by its District Manager, Nalgonda. … Petitioner And 1. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.16597 of 2000 and WRIT PETITION No.17052 of 2003 COMMON ORDER: The Award dated 18.8.1999 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, in I.D. No.156 of 1998, is under challenge in these two writ petitions. 2. W.P. No.16597 of 2000 is filed by the workman aggrieved by the Award to the extent it denied him back wages and other benefits, while W.P. No.17052 of 2003 is filed by the employer, the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Ltd., (APSHCL) challenging the Award to the extent it granted relief to the workman. 3. The workman claimed that he was appointed as a Work Inspector in the APSHCL under order dated 10.01.1985 and that he worked continuously up to 30.9.1987, when he was terminated from service without notice. Aggrieved thereby, he filed W.P. No.14729 of 1987 before this Court and by virtue of the orders passed therein, he was continued in service. However, he was again terminated from service in March 1989 without following the due procedure. He then filed I.D. No.34 of 1995 before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, which was thereafter transferred to the Industrial Tribunal-II, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and re- numbered as I.D. No.156 of 1998. 4. The APSHCL contested the claim of the workman and contended in its counter that he was appointed only on a temporary/NMR basis without any appointment orders and his services were terminated after the work was completed. The APSHCL therefore contended that it was not required to follow the procedure laid down in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However Ex.W-1, being the appointment order dated 10.01.1985, belied the stand of the APSHCL that the workman was appointed on a temporary/NMR basis without any appointment orders. Further, it was not disputed that the workman was continued in service pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition. After such re-engagement, the APSHCL admittedly did not follow the due procedure while dispensing with his services. Even if the workman absented himself from duty, the APSHCL had to necessarily initiate due proceedings for terminating his services thereafter. Admittedly, no such steps were taken. 5. In that view of the matter, the Industrial Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that there was a violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, invalidating the termination of the workman’s services. Taking into account the fact that the workman has not rendered service to the APSHCL after his termination from service, the Industrial Tribunal held that he was disentitled to back wages. In consequence, it directed the APSHCL to reinstate the workman in service without back wages and other attendant benefits, but observed that his seniority was to be protected. 6. Heard Sri B.G. Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the workman and Sri T. Sudhakar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the APSHCL. 7. It is established on facts that there was substantial delay on the part of the workman in seeking redressal. According to him, his services were dispensed with in the year 1989, but he did not choose to approach the Labour Court till the year 1995. Though delay on the part of the workman in a case of this nature would not be fatal to his claim, it would certainly be a factor to be taken into consideration while granting relief. Having slept over the matter, it is not open to the workman to assert a claim for back wages for the period that he remained out of service. The Industrial Tribunal, in any event granted him adequate relief by directing his reinstatement and protecting his seniority which would, in effect, mean continuity of service for purposes other than attendant and monetary benefits. Denial of back wages and attendant benefits was thus clearly justified on facts. 8. In so far as the challenge of the APSHCL in W.P. No.17052 of 2003 is concerned, the material placed on record before the Industrial Tribunal clearly manifested that it had not followed the due procedure while dispensing with the services of the workman, even if he was absent from duties unauthorisedly. Having re-appointed the petitioner pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition, the APSHCL was bound to follow the legal procedure if it wished to terminate his services. Having failed to do so, it can have no redressable grievance against the reliefs granted by the Industrial Tribunal. 9. This Court therefore finds no merit in both the writ petitions which are accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: October 31, 2011. BSB