IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16690 of 2006 Between: Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. 2 Sri N.Selva Kumar Acharya, S/o.N.Narayanachary Tirupati, Chittoor 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 to call for the records from the 1st respondent in I.D.No.106 of 1994 and issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari and quash the Award passed by the 1st respondent in I.D.No.106 of 1994, dated 15.2.2006, published on 9.5.2006, holding the same as illegal, unjust, contrary to law and perverse; and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16690 of 2006 ORDER: The 2nd respondent was appointed as a daily wage employee by Tiruma Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD) on 01.07.1976 and subsequently designated as Assistant Stapathy on 22.07.1980. He was placed under suspension on 19.04.1982 and thereafter, terminated orally with eﬀect from 01.04.1983. He ﬁled W.P.No.6552 of 1988 before this Court, challenging the order of oral termination. A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition on 31.01.1994. However, it was left open to the 2nd respondent to approach the Board of TTD or the Government, with a representation. The appeal presented by the 2nd respondent on 27.04.1994 did not yield any result. Therefore, he ﬁled I.D.No.106 of 1994 under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, Anantapur. Initially, an award was passed on 06.08.1997 directing reinstatement of the 2nd respondent with continuity of service. The petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.35919 of 2005 before this Court challenging the said award. The writ petition was allowed on 14.03.2002, setting aside the award and remanding the matter for fresh consideration and disposal, particularly on the question, whether TTD answers the description of industry. After remand, the Labour Court passed an award, dated 15.02.2006, directing reinstatement of the 2nd respondent with continuity of service, attendant beneﬁts and 50% of back wages. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard Sri A.K.Jaya Parakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. One of the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner is that there was delay of about 11 years on the part of the 2nd respondent in approaching the Labour Court. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submits that in the interregnum, the petitioner approached this Court by ﬁling W.P.No.6552 of 1988 and made an appeal to the petitioner in 1994. It is too late now, to hold that the I.D. was not maintainable, on the ground of delay. The reason is that the petitioner did not raise any objection for entertaining the I.D., when it was ﬁled, nor such a ground was pleaded in W.P.No.35919 of 2005. Even if the same is pleaded, it is deemed to have been rejected, inasmuch as this Court did not set aside the award on that ground. However, the 2nd respondent cannot be granted the relief of continuity of service for the period between the date of removal i.e., 01.04.1983 and the date of reinstatement i.e., 25.03.1998. The reason is that the entitlement of the 2nd respondent to be reinstated into service was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 31.01.1994 in the negative. In case, the 2nd respondent is to be granted continuity of service, anterior to that period, it amounts to reviewing the order of the Division Bench. Further, the 2nd respondent cannot take advantage of his own laxity in approaching the Labour Court. Another important aspect, which needs to be noticed, is that the 2nd respondent did not seek leave from the Division Bench, to approach the Labour Court. The same reason virtually holds good for the relief of back wages also. An additional factor is that in its earlier award, the Labour Court did not award back wages and after remand, it has awarded 50% of back wages. To that extent, the award cannot be sustained in law. This Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the award is modiﬁed to the eﬀect that the 2nd respondent shall be entitled to be reinstated into service with continuity of service, but excluding the period between the date of removal and date of reinstatement, and without back wages. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed, modifying the award, dated 15.02.2006, in I.D.No.106 of 1994 to the eﬀect that the 2nd respondent shall be entitled to be reinstated into service with continuity of service, excluding the period between 01.04.1983 and 25.03.1998, and without back wages. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 01.08.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16690 of 2006 Date: 01.08.2008 JSU