IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 6357 of 1998 Between: G.Narasimham, S/o Ammannacharyulu, R/o 18-2-2/1. Lingampet, 5th Street, Rajahmundry. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman Industrial Tribunal-I, 1st Floor, Chandra Vihar Complex, M.J.Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Manager (Port Operations), Food Corporation of India, RTC Complex Buildings, Vishakapatnam. .....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 issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records in I.D.No.40/88 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the award dated 10-1-96 passed in the said I.D.and published by the Govt. of India under Notiﬁcation No.L-42012/21/87-D.II(B) dt.11-1-96/22-1-97, holding and declaring that the termination of the services of the petitioner is ab initio void and that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated by the 2nd respondent herein into service with all consequential benefits including continuty of services adn full back wages and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{GSNM} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.6357 of 1998 O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the award passed by the 1 st respondent- Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.40 of 1988, dated 10-01-1996, as published by the Government of India under its Notifications dated 11-01-1996/22-1-1997. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was employed by the 2nd respondent- Joint Manager (Port Operations), Food Corporation of India, Visakhapatnam, on daily basis, in connection with the Port Operations and primarily he was concerned with loading and unloading of food-grains from the ships, railway wagons and trucks and/or lorries. The petitioner claims that he was illegally terminated from service on 12-12- 1979 while other employees were engaged by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner’s service was not considered for regularization though he deserved for the same and as such his retrenchment with effect from 12-12-1979 is violative of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act (for brevity ‘the Act’). The petitioner claims that he worked for more than 240 days with continuous service, during the period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of retrenchment. 3. The 2nd respondent ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit. His contention is that the petitioner never worked continuously for 240 days and in fact, his case is not of one retrenchment, but of disengagement on account of non-availability of work. The 2nd respondent further contended that the petitioner was employed only as casual labour, which is an engagement for the day, and there is no question of retrenchment or termination as alleged by the petitioner. Earlier, the Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner was decided under an award dated 23-01-1992 which was challenged by the 2nd respondent in this Court vide W.P.No.5644 of 1992. The said writ petition was allowed by order dated 07-04-1994 and the I.D. was remanded for fresh disposal. 4. After the remand, the petitioner was examined as W.W.1 and on behalf of the respondents, M.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. While the petitioner got marked Exs.W-1 and W-2, being counter of the 2nd respondent in W.P.No.5644 of 1992 and reply of the petitioner in the said writ petition, respectively, and Ex.W-3, a copy of the reply aﬃdavit of the 2nd respondent in the said writ petition, on behalf of the 2nd respondent, Exs.M-1 to M-12 were marked. Ex.M-1 to M-11, are wage sheets covering the period from 01-01-1979 to 13-12-1979 and Ex.M-12 is a statement showing the working days particulars of the petitioner. 5. On consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the termination by the 2nd respondent does not amount to retrenchment and the same is justiﬁed, and in view of the ﬁnding of the said aspect, the petitioner was held not entitled to any relief. Assailing the said award, the present writ petition is filed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the ﬁnding in the award that the petitioner has not worked continuously for 240 days is totally perverse and contrary to the evidence on record, and consequently, he claims that the termination of the petitioner amounts to retrenchment under the Act and as such the said termination being illegal and violative under Section 25-F of the Act and is liable to be interfered with. 7. I have heard both the learned counsel and I have examined the record. 8. The evidence of W.W.1, the petitioner herein, as well as the documents marked on behalf of the 2nd respondent-Management i.e. Exs.M-1 to M-12, are crucial in this case. The petitioner as W.W.1 admitted during his evidence that whenever he was paid salary, his signatures were obtained in vouchers. He further admitted that he is not recruited as regular employee. He further stated that no new person was engaged after the petitioner’s disengagement and the work was done by the employees of the 2nd respondent who were transferred from Madras Port. The signatures of the petitioner were obtained on Exs.M-1 to M-11, wage sheets. He also admitted that in the said wage sheets, the number of days for which the petitioner has worked are mentioned. 9. The evidence of M.W.1 is corroborated with the documents marked as Exs.M-1 to M-12 and he has categorically stated that along with the petitioner remaining workers were also disengaged for want of work. It is also asserted that the petitioner never worked for 240 days continuously and in fact, he has worked for 74 days in the year 1978 and for 92 days in the year 1979 and Ex.M-12, statement, clearly shows the number of days the petitioner worked. Ex.M-12, statement, is based upon the attendance register and it clearly shows that the petitioner has never worked for 240 days continuously in the preceding 12 months as alleged by him. 10. The Tribunal has based its findings on the above oral and documentary evidence and it has also taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner is unable to say about the service details of the other similar junior casual workers as to whether they are continued in service or any other new persons were taken into service after his termination. However, it is an admitted fact that after disengagement of the petitioner, except regular employees who come under transfer from their Madras Port oﬃce, no other persons were engaged on a casual basis. Therefore, the other provisions of the Act viz., Section 25-G or 25-H are also not attracted to the present case. The ﬁndings under the award under para-14 are clear and categorical and the learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to point out any inﬁrmity in the same on any ground. The evidence on record being against the contention of the petitioner. The Tribunal was fully justiﬁed in reaching the conclusions of the impugned award. 11. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the said award. This writ petition, is therefore, is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs. ________________ kvr -09-2008