HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.179 of 2007 Date: November 11, 2010 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. … Petitioner And 1. A. Masthanaiah & another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.179 of 2007 ORDER: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) through its Depot Manager, Srikalahasti Depot, Chittoor District, assails the award dated 31.7.2006 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur in I.D. No.241 of 2003. By the said award, the Labour Court set aside the oral termination of the workman, the first respondent herein, from service and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits but without back wages. 2. This Court, by order dated 19.6.2007, granted interim suspension of the operation of the award under challenge except reinstatement of the first respondent-workman in service. The APSRTC was specifically directed to reinstate the first respondent- workman in service within a period of two weeks and report compliance. Again, on 18.10.2008, this Court taking note of the earlier order passed on 19.6.2007 observed that no further orders were required to be passed in the miscellaneous application and closed the same. Relevant to note, it was not brought to the notice of this Court on 18.10.2008 that the order dated 19.6.2007 had not been complied with. In fact, the first respondent-workman has admittedly not been reinstated in service till date. 3. It is contended on behalf of the APSRTC that the first respondent was not its employee and that its contractor, Vadivelu, had engaged him. The APSRTC however admitted that the first respondent sustained injuries while working within its premises and was treated at the APSRTC’s hospital, at Tarnaka. It is also admitted that the APSRTC paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the first respondent-workman under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 4. Before the Labour Court, though the APSRTC contended that a contract was given to one P. Vadivelu on nomination basis for the period from 01.01.1994 to 30.6.1999 and that the said contractor engaged 15 persons, including the first respondent-workman, no document was produced in evidence thereof. Needless to state, being a statutory Corporation the APSRTC is expected to conduct its affairs duly supported by record and the award of a labour contract would necessarily have to be evidenced by a document in writing. The Labour Court therefore rightly drew an adverse inference against the APSRTC for its failure in producing a document to support its contention that a contract had been awarded to Vadivelu who, in turn, had engaged the first respondent-workman. The first respondent- workman, on the other hand, stated that Vadivelu was only a co-worker along with him and was not a contractor. The Labour Court therefore treated the first respondent-workman as having been engaged as casual labour by the APSRTC itself. The fact that he was treated at the APSRTC’s hospital and was paid compensation by it clearly support such a conclusion. 5. The APSRTC did not dispute the claim of the first respondent- workman that he worked from the month of December, 1997 till the date he met with an accident in the APSRTC’s premises on 27.02.1999. He had therefore put in the requisite period of 240 days entitling him to the benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Admittedly, the APSRTC did not comply with the requirements of the said provision while dispensing with the services of the first respondent-workman. In that view of the matter, his oral termination from service would amount to an illegal retrenchment, given the fact that the APSRTC could not substantiate his having been engaged by an intermediary contractor. The direction of the Labour Court to reinstate the first respondent in service with continuity of service and attendant benefits cannot therefore be found fault with. The Labour Court also protected the interest of the APSRTC by denying the first respondent-workman back wages for the period that he remained out of its service. The award under challenge therefore does not warrant interference on any count and is accordingly upheld. 6. As the first respondent-workman was not reinstated in service in spite of the order passed by this Court on 19.6.2007, he shall be deemed to have been reinstated from the date of enforceability of the award under challenge and would be entitled to all consequential benefits from that date. 7. The writ petition is dismissed subject to the above observation. No costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: November 11, 2010 BSB