THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 3014 OF 2000 Date: 09-09-2011 Between: The A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation Limited, rep. by its Managing Director and another .. Petitioners And Sri D.Narasaiah and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 3014 OF 2000 ORDER: The Andhra Pradesh State Seeds Development Corporation represented by its Managing Director and the Assistant Manager, A.P. Seeds Development Corporation are the petitioners in this Writ Petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the award dated 05.11.1999 passed in I.D.No.102 of 1996 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad (for short “Labour Court”). 2. The admitted facts are that the 1st respondent D.Narasaiah worked as a casual worker on daily wage basis in the 1st petitioner- Corporation. The 1st respondent’s version is that he worked from 1985 in that capacity but that is disputed by the petitioners. 3. It is seen that the petitioners have terminated the services of the 1st respondent some time in August, 1988 and that was an oral termination. The 1st respondent and some others similarly situated earlier filed a writ petition i.e. W.P.No.11812 of 1988 and batch questioning their terminations. However, this Court disposed of those writ petitions on 08.02.1989 directing the petitioner and others therein to approach the concerned forum under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”) for the relief sought for by them. Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed the I.D.No.102 of 1996 in the Labour Court questioning his termination. 4. In para-4 of its award, the Labour Court framed only two points. The first point was whether the order of oral termination dated 31.08.1988 of the respondent was valid? Then the second point was, what was the relief to be given to the petitioner basing on the decision on the first point? 5. Both sides have let-in evidence before the Labour Court and the details of the said evidence are given in the appendix of evidence at the foot of the impugned award. The Labour Court considered the oral evidence of the petitioner i.e. W.W.1 before it and also Ex.W-3 statement filed by him. This Ex.W-3 is a copy of the statement of the number of days for which the petitioner and some others shown in it worked in the 2nd respondent-Corporation. In his evidence, the petitioner while getting Ex.W-3 marked has stated that its original was filed by the 1st respondent-Corporation in the above writ petition in this Court and no objection was raised to the marking of the same and accordingly it was marked. This statement shows that during the period October, 1987 to July, 1988, the petitioner worked for 204 days. Relying upon this Ex.W-3 statement and the oral evidence of the petitioner and also the failure of the respondents-Corporation to file the muster rolls for the relevant periods showing that the petitioner worked only for 204 days in all, the Labour Court concluded that from the evidence on record that the petitioner can be said to have worked continuously for 240 days including the holidays during the period from October, 1987 to July, 1988. Holding so, the Labour Court found that the petitioner could not have been terminated except in compliance with Section 25-F of the Act and in that view of the matter it directed his reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits but without back wages. 6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner- Corporation argued that the Labour Court committed a serious error in going by Ex.W-3 and it should have insisted upon the 1st respondent to produce cogent evidence to show that he worked for 240 days in the year preceding the termination and that without doing so, the Labour Court ought not to have accepted the 1st respondent’s case. 7. A perusal of the Award and the record would show that the Labour Court not only relied upon Ex.W-3 but it also relied upon the failure of the management i.e. the Corporation to produce the relevant muster rolls to show that the petitioner did not work for 240 days. Basing on these two circumstances, the Labour Court concluded in favour of the 1st respondent. 8. One more aspect, which should be noted here is that the original of Ex.W-3 has been filed by the Corporation itself in this Court initially in the writ petition. The Corporation did not take steps to produce the record on the basis of which it has drawn up the original of Ex.W-3 statement. Not only this it should also be noted that the period from October, 1987 to July 1988 works out to 10 months. According to Section 25-B of the Act, holidays, public holidays such as Sundays and other public holidays have also to be taken into account. For a period of ten months, the Sundays itself would work out to more than 30 days. In addition to this, there may be public holidays such as public holidays falling on Hindu and Muslim festivals. Taking into account those public holidays also, which are not indicated in Ex.W-3 statement, on probabilities, it can be concluded that the 1st respondent has worked for 240 days. Thus, this is a case where there was evidence before the Labour Court to support its conclusions recorded in the Award. So far as the delay aspect is concerned in moving the Labour Court, it is seen that this question has not been raised before the Labour Court nor in this court also and hence that is not gone into. 9. It is well settled that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with an award when it is supported by evidence and is found to be in accordance with law. Thus, the finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner must be held to have worked for 240 days, cannot be interfered with. In view of this, it follows that the award has to be confirmed. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 09.09.2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 3014 OF 2000 Date: 09-09-2011 MR