THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.1607 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the award dated 27.03.2004 passed by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.139 of 2001. Petitioner is the management and respondent is the workman. It appears, the workman, who is a diploma holder in Engineering, was appointed as NMR Work Inspector on daily wages, through proceedings No.A1/Estt/412/92 dated 23.05.1992 of the Mandal Development Officer, MPP. Bheemgal, Nizamabad. While that being so, his services were abruptly terminated orally. Aggrieved thereby, he invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was the case of the workman before the Labour Court that he was initially appointed as NMR Work Inspector on daily wages and continuously worked as such for a considerable time, therefore, absolutely there was no justification on the part of the management to suddenly terminate his services without assigning any reasons. The management filed a counter affidavit before the Tribunal, wherein while admitting the appointment of the workman as NMR Work Inspector at various Mandals under Jawahar Rozgar Youjana (JRY) Scheme, it was stated that since the said scheme was no longer in existence, the services of the workman were rightly terminated, and that the services of the workman can be terminated at any time as per the appointment order given to him. Before the Tribunal, the workman examined himself as WW.1 and marked Exs.W1 to W5. On behalf of the respondent-management, MW.1 was examined and Exs.M1 and M2 were marked. After elaborate consideration of the matter, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the abrupt termination of services of the workman either in writing or orally is not at all justified and thus passed the impugned award dated 27.03.2004, setting aside the order of termination and directing the management to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service for the purpose of regularization of his services on par with the Work Inspectors who were appointed either along with the workman or after the workman’s services were terminated, if any, but without backwages. Aggrieved thereby, the management filed this writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-management strenuously contended that absolutely there was no evidence to show that the workman had put in more than 240 days in a calendar year of 12 month preceding the date of his termination to come to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act have been violated. Further, it was contended that the workman worked under JRY Scheme and since the said scheme was abolished, his services became redundant. Learned counsel also submitted that the workman himself absconded from duties and claimed his reinstatement after a lapse of nine years, therefore, the question of his reinstatement does not arise. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman, in support of the stand that the workman worked for more than 240 days in the 12 month period preceding his termination, placed a copy of the counter affidavit, which was filed by the management before the Labour Court. A perusal of the counter affidavit, which was filed by the management before the Labour Court, would show that the workman worked from 23.05.1992 to 31.12.1992 for 211 days and from 01.01.1993 to 27.02.1993 for 56 days. But, according to the management, this period of 211 days and 56 days being not rendered in a calender year cannot be considered for the purpose of computation of 240 days. This stand of the management cannot be sustained. The workman joined service with effect from 23.05.1992 and therefore it has to be seen whether he had put in 240 days of service in between 23.05.1992 and 23.05.1993. Admittedly, the workman had put in more than 240 days of service even by 27.02.1993. Thus, it cannot be said that that the services rendered by the workman cannot be reckoned for the purpose of computation of 240 days as per Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. Now, the question is whether the workman was appointed under J.R.Y. Scheme and that after the said Scheme is closed, his services would come to an end? A copy of the appointment order dated 23.05.1992, whereby the workman was appointed, is filed in the material papers filed along with the writ petition. A perusal of the said appointment order would not reveal that the workman was appointed under J.R.Y. scheme and that his services would come to an end on closure of the said scheme. Further, it is unfortunate to notice that at one point of time, the management stated that since the scheme under which the workman was appointed was abolished, his services were rightly terminated, and at another point of time, it stated that the workman himself absconded to duties from 28.02.1993. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that though the Labour Court has not furnished elaborate reasons in the impugned award passed by it, it has not committed any error in ordering reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service in view of gross violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner- management is directed to reinstate the respondent-workman into service within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 20.01.2011 v v