THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 18259 of 2001 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Award dated 24.04.2000 in I.D.No. 134 of 1995 on the file of the Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, to the extent of denying back wages and continuity of service to the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, unsustainable and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner herein raised an Industrial Dispute contending inter alia that she was appointed as a Typist in PASMA Section under the 2nd respondent herein i.e. the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Hanamkonda, with effect from 15.03.1989, and she worked on daily wages up to 15.05.1990. The 2nd respondent terminated her services without issuing any notice and violating the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also contended by the petitioner that one Sri K. Ramachandra Murthy and Sri Ravinder, who were employed along with her, were continued in service by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent herein filed a counter before the Labour Court, admitting that the petitioner worked as a Typist, in PASMA Section from 15.03.1989 till May 1990, but however, contended that she never worked continuously and that she worked as and when work was available. It is also the case of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner was not issued any appointment order and therefore, no termination order was also issued to her. It is also their case that PASMA Section was discontinued and was transferred to S.C. Services Cooperative Society Limited, Warangal. It is also contended that Sri K. Ramachandra Murthy and Sri Ravinder were appointed as daily wage employees in D.R.D.A. The Labour Court framed the issue as to whether the petitioner worked continuously and completed 240 days of service prior to 15.05.1990 and whether there is any violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner herself was examined as W.W.1 and on behalf of the 2nd respondent, M.W.1 was examined. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering Ex.W.1, xerox copies of pay slips for the months from April 1989 to September 1989 and also the evidence of M.W.1 that the petitioner worked from October to December 1989 and from January to March 1990, found that the petitioner worked continuously from 15.03.1989 to March 1990. It also found that the 2nd respondent has not chosen to file any record to show as to how many days the petitioner worked from April 1990 to 5th May 1990. The Labour Court held that the petitioner worked continuously for more than 240 days and before she was terminated from the service, no notice was issued to her and that the order of termination is in violation of Section 25-F & G of the 1947 Act. It also held that PASMA Section was with the 2nd respondent from 1983 to 1991 i.e. even when the petitioner was illegally terminated from service. The Labour Court also found that the termination is illegal, and that it becomes irrelevant to discuss and decide whether PASMA Section continued with the 2nd respondent or transferred to some other department. However, the Labour Court finding that there are lapses on the part of the petitioner and in view of the delay in approaching the Labour Court, held that she is not entitled to back wages and continuity of service. Sri V. Hari Haran, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court, having found the order of termination as illegal and in violation of Section 25-F & G, ought to have awarded the back wages and continuity of service. None appears for the respondents. This Writ Petition has been pending since 2001. There is no justification in granting further adjournment. Admittedly, the Industrial Dispute was raised in 1995 and the petitioner was terminated from service on 15.05.1990. Thus, it is clear that there is delay in raising the Industrial Dispute. However, it is clear that the Labour Court held that the termination of the services of the petitioner is illegal and in violation of Section 25-F & G of the Act. When it is found that the termination is illegal, the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement from the date of termination, into service with continuity of service. However, in view of the delay in approaching the Labour Court, the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is not awarded any back wages. In view of the same, the Award dated 24.04.2000 in I.D. No. 134 of 1995 stands modified to the extent indicated below: The petitioner shall be reinstated into service with continuity of service, however, she will not be entitled to any back wages. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ------------------------------ (B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J) 02nd December 2010 ksld