THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.24606, 26547, 26763, 26765, 26768, 26769, 26829, 26830, 26832, 26833, 26834, 26555, 25462, 25463 & 25465 of 2000 COMMON ORDER: In this batch of writ petitions, the awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, in the industrial disputes raised by the 2nd respondent, in each of the writ petitions, are challenged. The workmen pleaded that they have been engaged and appointed as Bottling Workers on 10.03.1987, by the Arrack Bottling Unit, Wyra, Khammam District, the petitioners herein, and they worked till 03.11.1989. According to them, the 2nd petitioner terminated their services orally on 03.11.1989, without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). The manner in which the salary used to be paid to them, or deductions for provident fund etc., used to be made, were also stayed. The I.Ds., were opposed by the petitioners by filing counters. It was stated that the respondents were engaged only on daily wages of Rs.15/- per day, and not on any monthly salary. The plea of the respondents that they worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year was also denied. It was ultimately pleaded that the termination is not at all in violation of any provision of law. Through the respective awards, the Labour Court found that the respondents worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, their oral termination was contrary to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, and accordingly, directed their reinstatement, but without back wages. The petitioners contend that there is nothing on record to establish either that the respondents were engaged on regular basis, or that they have worked for 240 days. On behalf of the respondents, counter-affidavits are filed. It is stated that the oral and documentary evidence was adduced to establish that they worked for more than 240 days and that they were being paid wages, duly giving deductions of provident fund etc. Heard Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents-workmen. Before the Labour Court, in addition to the concerned workmen, other witnesses were also examined. They have also filed the Xerox copies of the seniority list maintained by the petitioners, service certificates as well as the copies of the awards passed in identical matters. On behalf of the petitioners herein, MW.1 was examined and he filed Exs.M.1 to M.11, most of which are the Xerox copies of the payment register and statement relating to the respective respondents. The petitioners do not dispute that the respondents were engaged by them. The plea of the petitioners that the respondents were engaged on daily wage basis is belied, from the fact that the wages were paid once in a month, so much so, the provident fund and other similar amounts were deducted from the wages. It hardly needs any emphasis that the occasion to deduct provident fund contribution would arise, only when workmen is engaged on monthly basis. As regards the plea that the respondents did not work for more than 240 days also, the Labour Court recorded a specific finding that they did work for such time. These are pure questions of fact. It is well settled principle of law that the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, shall not interfere with the findings of fact. The petitioners are not able to demonstrate any legal or jurisdictional infirmity in the awards. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners are paying wages under Section 17-B of the Act to the respondents during the pendency of the writ petitions. It is not known as to whether the respondents were gainfully employed elsewhere. To give a quietus, the petitioners can be relieved from the obligation to pay any difference of the wages, anterior to the date of this order. The Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. The petitioners shall reinstate the respective workmen into service and pay wages, after reinstatement, on par with any other persons discharging similar functions. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.02.12.2010. GJ