HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 2349 OF 2002 . DATED 12th September, 2011. BETWEEN Chappa Rama Rao and ors …Petitioners And Chairman & Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and anr ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 2349 of 2002 ORDER: Aggrieved by the Nil Award dated 8.1.2001 passed in I.D.Nos. 175, 176 and 200 of 1998 by the first respondent-Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, the present Writ Petition is filed. The facts which are not in dispute and admitted by both sides are thus: the second respondent- Metallurgical & Engineering Consultants (India) Limited ( MECON) is a Government of India Undertaking incorporated under the Indian Companies Act,1956 and its Head Office is located at Ranchi in Bihar State and its site office was located inside Visakhapatnam Steel Plant as it (MECON) had entered into agreements dated 25.4.1983 and 27.3.1985 with it for erection and commissioning for Coke Ovens, Coke Dry Cooling Plant, Wire rod mill, light and medium structural mill, gas cleaning plant etc. To complete the said projects, the second respondent-MECON had engaged temporary, casual, daily wage workers. Out of them, the first petitioner joined as a driver on 17.8.1990, second and third petitioners joined as Office Assistants on 4.1.1990 9.2.1988 respectively. While so, the second respondent-management (MECON) retrenched them on 31.3.1994 duly complying Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners raised the aforesaid Industrial Disputes. It was the case of the petitioners-workmen before the Labour Court that their services were abruptly retrenched while continuing their juniors in its service. It was their further case that they were initially appointed on daily wage basis, but subsequently on fixed pay scales as per the union settlement and later by following a due selection process of tests and interviews. However, they were not given any appointment letters. It was their complaint that when they had knocked the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking regularization of their services, the second respondent-MECON abruptly retrenched their services. The second respondent-MECON resisted the applications by filing a written statement that the contracts entered with the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant were completed vide certificate under Ex.M.3 and in pursuance thereof, it retrenched all the temporary, daily rates and causal workers some of whom are the petitioners herein, by duly complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court upon consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, dismissed the IDs raised by the petitioners herein by the common Award impugned in this Writ Petition, holding that the petitioners were appointed on temporary basis and on completion of the contract works, the second respondent-MECON retrenched the temporary, daily rates and causal workers some of whom are the petitioners herein duly complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence the present Writ Petition. Despite the fact that the case was called out for hearing twice today, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners nor is there any representation made on their behalf.. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent-MECON. The Writ Petition is of the year 2002. As such, I proceeded to decide the matter on merits based on the material available on record. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioners stated that termination of their services on completion of the project works was illegal and that they were never given appointment letters with such contracted conditions. They alleged that in as much as they had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange and thereafter, were continued as per the regular selection process, the second respondent ought to have treated them as its regular employees. They pleaded that the second respondent is an ‘Industrial Establishment’ as defined under Section 25-K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that the provisions of Section 25-N would be squarely applicable to the second respondent- MECON. Sri S.V.Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent-MECON while reiterating the counter averments, drew my attention to the impugned Award of the Labour Court and submitted that the retrenchment effected by the second respondent-MECON was as per the procedure laid down under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that the petitioners themselves admitted the same and also receipt of payment of the retrenchment compensation in lieu of notice in pursuance thereto. He further contended that there was also no dispute with regard to appointment of the petitioners on temporary basis. Perused the case file meticulously. The established facts on record would disclose that the petitioners had been appointed purely on temporary basis, pursuant to the second respondent- MECON entering into the agreements under Ex.M1 with the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant for completion of certain project works as mentioned therein. It was also established that soon after the completion of the project works entrusted to it, a circular (Ex.M.4) was also issued by the second respondent-MECON wherein it was specifically stated that consequent upon the completion of the project works awarded to MECON by Visakhapatnam Steel Plant all the temporary site establishment inside the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant shall stand wound up w.e.f. 21.6.1995 and all the permanent employees working with MECON inside the Steel Plant stand posted at its office w.e.f. 22.6.1995 FN. The material placed on record would also disclose that the petitioners who had been appointed on temporary basis were retrenched for want of work and they were also paid retrenchment compensation in accordance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the year 1994 itself. The petitioners did not approach any Forum for reddressal of their grievance immediately thereafter and only after waiting for 4½ years they raised the aforesaid Industrial Disputes. Even the petitioners failed to adduce evidence to establish that the second respondent-MECON was an ‘Industrial Establishment’ within the meaning of Section 25.K and application of the provisions of Section 25.N to the second respondent-MECON thereon. The Labour Court recorded that there was no pleading by the petitioners-workmen as to the application of the provisions of Chapter.V.B to the second respondent-MECON. That being so, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Shankar Chakravarthi Vs. Britannia Biscuit Co Ltd {(1979) 3 SCC 371} it was held that when there was no pleading raising such a contention, the same could not be considered. Even otherwise also, the workmen-petitioners while adducing evidence failed to establish to the extent as indicated above. The petitioners admitted themselves that the second respondent-MECON had followed the due procedure of giving one month notice and making payment of retrenchment compensation in lieu of notice as provided under Section 25-F of the Act. It is well settled that acceptance of retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F cannot validate an ‘invalid order of termination’. In view of the forgoing reasons, I see no merit in the contentions of the petitioners. The Writ Petition is therefore liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 12th September, 2011. Msnro