THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 23632 of 2003 Writ Petition No. 24958 of 2004 And Writ Petition No. 12915 of 2009 Dated: 20.04.2010 Writ Petition No. 23632 of 2001 Between: DSCSCS Limited., Hanmakonda … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Labour, Employment, Training and Lab-I Department, Rep., by its Officer on special duty, Hyderabad and 2 others. … Respondents Writ Petition No. 24958 of 2004 Between: A.Prabhakar … Petitioner And The Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court, Warangal and another. …Respondents Writ Petition No. 12915 of 2009 Between: The Executive Director, Hanamkonda, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And The Presiding Officer, The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal and another. THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 23632 of 2003 Writ Petition No. 24958 of 2004 And Writ Petition No. 12915 of 2009 C O M M O N O R D E R : All these writ petitions arise out of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in I.D.No.55 of 2001 dated 02.05.2003. The parties to all the writ petitions are also common. Hence, the writ petitions are heard together and decided by this common order. W.P.No.23632 of 2003 has been filed by the District Scheduled Castes Services Cooperative Societies Limited, Warangal (herein after referred to as ‘petitioner-society’) seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the award dated 02.05.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal in I.D.No.55 of 2001 directing reinstatement of the 3rd respondent with continuity of service and to quash the same being arbitrary and illegal. W.P.No.24958 of 2004 has been filed by the 3rd respondent challenging the very same award in I.D.No.55 of 2001 to the extent of denial of back wages. W.P.No.12915 of 2009 is filed by the society challenging the subsequent order dated 16.02.2009 passed by the Labour Court in E.P.No.29 of 2008 directing attachment of the movable properties of the society in the event of its failure to pay the wages for the period from 01.01.2007 to 15.09.2008 within three months. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner and the 3rd respondent as they are arrayed in W.P.No.23632 of 2003. The facts, in brief, are as under: The 3rd respondent filed I.D.No.55 of 2001 under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( for short ‘the Act’) claiming that he was appointed on 01.04.1985 as an Attender on daily wages by the petitioner-society and that his services were terminated orally on 30.08.1990 without serving one month’s notice and without paying retrenchment compensation as required under Sections 25-F and 25-H of the Act. The petitioner in its counter contended that the 3rd respondent was engaged as a water boy on daily wage basis and he worked as such only from 01.06.1985 to 31.03.1986. It was contended that even during the said period, he never worked continuously. The plea of the 3rd respondent that he was engaged as Attender and his services were illegally terminated was specifically denied. It was also contended that the petitioner-society was not an industry as defined under the Act. The 3rd respondent got himself examined as W.W.1 and on behalf of the petitioner-society, M.W.1 was examined before the Labour Court. Exs.W.1 to W.3 documents were marked on behalf of the 3rd respondent whereas, the petitioner-society did not choose to file any documents on its behalf. On appreciation of the evidence adduced, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the 3rd respondent had worked continuously for 240 days within 12 months prior to the date of retrenchment. It was also found that the retrenchment of the 3rd respondent was illegal and was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. Thus, by award dated 02.05.2003 while setting aside the termination, the Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the 3rd respondent as Attender on daily wage with continuity of service. However, back wages and other benefits from the date of retrenchment till reinstatement were denied. The said award dated 02.05.2003 in I.D.No.55 of 2001 is under challenge in W.P.Nos.23632 of 2003 and 24958 of 2004 filed by the petitioner-society and the 3rd respondent respectively. In W.P.No.23632 of 2003, this Court, by order dated 17.11.2003, initially granted interim suspension of the impugned award dated 02.05.2003 except to the extent of reinstatement. Subsequently after hearing both parties, by order dated 21.03.2005 the said order was made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioner-society shall comply with the proviso to Section 17-B of the Act. However, the petitioner-society failed to comply with the said order and consequently by order dated 28.12.2006 in W.P.M.P.No.2614 of 2006, this Court granted liberty to the 3rd respondent to execute the impugned award dated 02.05.2003. Pursuant thereto, the 3rd respondent filed E.P.No.29 of 2008 for recovery of Rs.87,984/- towards wages from 01.01.2007 to 15.09.2008. The said E.P. was allowed by the Labour Court by order dated 16.02.2009 as prayed for by granting three months time to the society to pay the said amount. As noticed above, the said order in E.P.No.29 of 2008 is under challenge in W.P.No.12915 of 2009 filed by the petitioner-society. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner-society contended that the Labour Court committed a grave error in directing reinstatement of the 3rd respondent since he was engaged only temporarily on daily wage basis and moreover he had left the services on his own with effect from 01.04.1986. It was also contended that whereas the alleged oral termination took place in the year 1986, the I.D. was preferred in the year 2001 after a lapse of 15 years and thus, it was hopelessly barred by limitation. The finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner worked for 240 days within 12 months prior to the date of termination was also assailed contending that there was no evidence to establish the same. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent contended that the findings recorded by the Labour Court on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record warrant no interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that since the Labour Court arrived at the conclusion that the termination was illegal, there was no justifiable reason to deny the back wages and other consequential benefits and therefore, the impugned award to the extent of denying back wages and other benefits from the date of retrenchment till reinstatement is liable to be set aside. The law is well settled that while reviewing the awards of the Industrial Tribunal, this Court will not go into the question of adequacy or inadequacy, sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence on the basis of which the findings were recorded by the Industrial Tribunal. If the findings were based upon some substantial acceptable evidence, the findings cannot be disturbed since in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court will not re-appreciate the evidence and record a finding on a question of fact different from the finding recorded by the Tribunal. Even in case where two views are possible from the same evidence, the finding of the fact recorded by the Tribunal will not be disturbed unless there is glaring perversity or unreasonableness in such finding. In the light of the above stated settled legal position, the question that requires consideration is whether the award under challenge warrants interference by this Court. As already noticed, the 3rd respondent got himself examined as W.W.1 and deposed before the Labour Court that he was engaged on daily wage basis and that his services were terminated illegally without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F and 25-H of the Act. To substantiate his plea, Exs.W.1 to W.3 documents were marked on his behalf. The fact that the 3rd respondent worked in the Office of the petitioner-society from the year 1985 onwards was admitted by M.W.1 in his evidence. The pay particulars of the 3rd respondent, which were marked as Ex.W.2 established that the 3rd respondent was in service from 1985 to 1990. The Labour Court having found the said evidence was acceptable and sufficient to establish the 3rd respondent’s claim that he worked continuously for 240 days within 12 months preceding the date of termination, held that the impugned termination being in violation of Section 25-F and 25-H of the Act was illegal. On a careful consideration of the material available on record, particularly the reasons assigned in the impugned award, this Court is satisfied that the finding recorded by the Labour Court was based on evidence adduced by the parties. Such finding of fact warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the reinstatement ordered by the Labour Court was in accordance with law. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal below was justified in denying the back wages and other attendant benefits? The fact that the 3rd respondent preferred I.D.No.55 of 2001 after a long lapse of 15 years is not in dispute. Even in the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.24958 of 2004 filed by the 3rd respondent, no explanation could be offered for the delay on his part in challenging the action of the petitioner-society in terminating his services. It is true that the mere delay in challenging the termination is not a bar to adjudicate the matter under Section 2-A(2) of the Act. However, undoubtedly, it is a justifiable ground to deny the back wages for the period of delay in raising the dispute. Therefore, in the absence of any acceptable explanation for the inordinate delay, the Tribunal below had rightly held that the 3rd respondent was not entitled to receive the back wages and other attendant benefits. The said order, in my considered opinion, cannot be held to be erroneous on any ground whatsoever. In the result, the W.P.Nos.23632 of 2003 and 24958 of 2004 are hereby dismissed upholding the award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.55 of 2001 dated 02.05.2003. So far as W.P.No.12915 of 2009 is concerned, the order impugned is only a consequential order passed in the execution proceedings on the basis of the award dated 02.05.2003 in I.D.No.55 of 2001. Now, that W.P.No.23623 of 2003 has been dismissed upholding the award in I.D.No.55 of 2001, the consequential order in E.P.No.29 of 2008 warrants no interference. Accordingly, W.P.No.12915 of 2009 shall also stand dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 20.04.2010 Note: Issue C.C. in one week B/o KLP