IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION Nos. 16282, 16299, 16306, 16315, 16325 and 16331 of 2002 W.P.No.16282 of 2002: Between: The Commisioner, Rajendranagar Municipality, Rajendranagar, R.R.Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Labour Court-I, Rep by its PO., Hyd. 2 P.Laxmaiah S/o Venkataiah Hyderguda, H.No.3-2-48, Rajendranagar, RRDist. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari after calling for the records from the R1 quash the order in I.D.No. 244/2000 dt 29-12-2001. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.VISWANATHAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY W.P.No.16299 of 2002: Between: COMMISSIONER, RAJENDRANAGAR MUNICIPALITY, RAJENDRANAGAR, RANGAREDDY DIST. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HYDERABAD. 2 SMT.K.VIJAYA, W/O.K.BALRAJ. BUDWAL, H.NO.1-5-43, RAJENDRANAGAR, RANGA REDDY DIST. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in nature of writ of certiorari, after calling for records from the 1st Respondent quash the order in I.D.No.239/2000,dt.29-12-2001, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.V.VISWANATHAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY W.P.No.16306 of 2002: Between: The Commissioner, Rajendranagar Muncipality, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Hyderbad. 2 Smt. Balamani W/o babu Rao R/o Hyderguda, H. No. 3-3-1, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of Certiorari, after calling for records from the 1st respondent quash the order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.V.VISWANATHAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR W.P.No.16315 of 2002: Between: The Commissioner, Rajendranagar Municipality, Rajendranagar, R.R.District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Labour Court-I, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Hyderabad. 2 B.Yesu, S/o. Narsimha, R/o. 5-6-62, Premavathipet, Rajendranagar, R.R.District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, after calling for records from the 1st Respondent quash the order I.D.No.243/2000, dt.29-12-2001. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VISWANATHAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR W.P.No.16325 of 2002: Between: The Commissioner, Rajendranagar Municipality Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Hyderabad 2 K. Balraj, S/o. K. Laxmaiah, R/o Budwal, H. No. 1-5-43, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction mere particularly one in nature of Writ of Certiorari, after calling for records from the 1st Respondent quash the order in I.D. No. 245/2000, dt. 29-12-2001. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR W.P.No.16331 of 2002: Between: The Commissioner, Rajendranagar Municipality, Rajendranagar, R.R.District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Labour Court-I, Rep. by its Prasiding Officer, Hyderabad. 2 K.Pushpamma, W/o. K. Eswaraiah, R/o. Budwal, Rajendranagar, R.R.District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of Certiorari, after calling for records from the 1st Respondent quash the order in I.D.No.241/2000, dt. 29-12-2001. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VISWANATHAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR This court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These writ petitions are filed by the petitioner-municipality and they relate to same subject-matter. Hence, they are heard together and disposed of, by this common order. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent-workmen were appointed as Kamatees/Sweepers on N.M.R. basis by the petitioner- municipality on 01.03.1989. Though they have put in a continuous service for more than 240 days, without recourse to the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) i.e. issuance of one month notice or payment of one month salary, the petitioner-municipality orally terminated them from service on 20.02.1992. Challenging their termination, the respondent-workmen have filed applications in I.D.Nos.239, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245 of 2000, under Section 2-A(2) of the Act, before the Labour Court-I, A.P., Hyderabad – 1st respondent, seeking direction to the petitioner-municipality to reinstate them into service, with all attendant benefits, including continuity of service and full back wages. Having heard both the parties and considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced on their behalf, the 1st respondent allowed all the aforesaid I.Ds in part, setting aside the oral termination orders passed by the petitioner-municipality on 20.02.1992 and directing it to reinstate the respondent-workmen into service, with continuity of service and all attendant benefits and back wages, from the date of raising of the industrial disputes, till the date of their reinstatement into service, by awards dated 29.12.2001. The said awards are challenged in these writ petitions. 3. Heard both the learned counsel. 4. This Court, while issuing rule nisi on 29.08.2002, has granted interim stay of operation of the Awards dated 29.12.2001 of the 1st respondent in I.D.Nos. 239, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245 of 2000, except the reinstatement of the respondent-workmen. 5. Today, when the matters are taken up for hearing, both the learned counsel have fairly conceded that the respondent-workmen were reinstated into service, in pursuance of the interim orders passed by this Court on 29.08.2002 and they have already put in a continuous service for about seven years as on date. In the light of the same, this Court is of the view that these writ petitions be disposed of with a direction to the petitioner-municipality to take the service of the respondent-workmen from 29.08.2002 into consideration, for the purpose of attendant benefits only. 6. Accordingly, all these writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 27th July, 2009 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION Nos.16282, 16299, 16306, 16315, 16325 and 16331 of 2002 (Disposed of-NC) 27th July, 2009 CBS