THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.4384 OF 2005 Dated : 09.04.2010 Between : The Executive Engineer, Hyderabad ….. Petitioner a n d The Presiding Officer & another ….. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.4384 OF 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award made by the Central Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in I.D.No.231 of 2001 dated 27.09.2004, whereunder the reference made by the Government as to “whether the action of the management of CPWD, Hyderabad, in terminating the services of Sri Y.Ramachandar, Typist-cum-Clerk, by oral order w.e.f. 27.07.1996 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief Sri Ramachandar is entitled to?” was answered in favour of the workman-respondent No.2 directing the petitioner-management to appoint the workman temporarily as Typist-cum-Clerk within 30 days from the publication of the award failing which the workman shall be entitled to Rs.2,000/- per month after 30 days of publication of the award. Petitioner is the management. Respondent No.2 is the workman. It appears, the respondent No.2 worked as Typist-cum-Clerk with the petitioner-Management till 27.09.1996, the day on which his services were terminated orally. According to workman, he was initially appointed on 29.11.1984 as Assistant Operator (Electrical) through Employment Exchange in the office of the Assistant Engineer in HCESD-1/III, CPWD, National Police Academy Campus, Shivarampally, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad, under the control of Director General of Works, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. He continuously worked till his services were terminated on 19.12.1984. Thereafter, he was not permitted to discharge his duties on the ground that he was on leave from 09.12.1984 to 18.12.1984. Ultimately, he was taken on duty as Typist-cum-Clerk/LDC in the month of August, 1989. In that capacity he worked up to 27.07.1996. However, his services were again terminated on 27.07.1996 without following the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). Then, he moved conciliation machinery, on failure, the same was reported to the Government. In turn, Government referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. Management filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the workman and stating that workman was engaged as Assistant Operator (Electrical) on NMR remained absent and turned back to Executive Engineer (Electrical) for casual labour job presumably keeping eye on the white collar job. It is not feasible and obligatory on the part of the department to wait for his reporting back to duty. An NMR by suspending the work at site absented himself for duties. Offer of appointment clearly states that the appointment was purely temporary and liable for termination at any time without any notice or assigning any reasons and the workman will have no claim whatsoever for future appointment etc. Further the workman never worked continuously for 240 days and he has not put in one year continuous service as on August, 1996, and he has not fulfilled any of the conditions. Therefore, he is not entitled for any relief as claimed. On behalf of the workman, he examined himself as WW.1 and marked Exs.W.1 to W.71. On behalf of the management, M.W.1 was examined and Exs.M.1 to M.27 were marked. After detailed consideration of the material placed before it, Labour Court recorded findings that “on its own scrutiny of the material it was clear that the workman worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Therefore, there was violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act and as such the workman was entitled for reinstatement into service.” However, the back wages and continuity of services were denied by the Labour Court. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that absolutely there is no evidence to show that the workman worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year to attract provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Therefore, the Labour Court has grossly erred in passing the award by invoking the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent supported the award passed by the Labour Court and stated that the Labour Court itself has looked into the records, satisfied and came to the conclusion that the workman continuously worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal and the writ petition filed by the management is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. After giving earnest consideration to the submissions made by either side counsel, perusing the impugned order and the material on record, the only question falls for consideration in this case is ‘whether the workman had put in 240 days continuous service in a calendar year or not?’ In this regard, the findings recorded by the Labour Court at para Nos.7 and 8 of the impugned award may be relevant to notice, which read as under: “7. In the cross examination he deposed that it is true that the records pertaining to 1995-96 were filed and records pertaining to 1992-94 were not filed. His last working day was 10.07.96. It is not true that he worked upto 27.7.96. But he worked only upto 10.7.96. That as per Court’s direction they filed 27 documents covering the period from 1.5.95 to 10.7.96 vide Exs.M1 to M27. He cannot say whether the total comes up to Rs.18,300/- and whether petitioner has worked for 366 days from 1.5.95 to 10.7.96. Exs.M1 to M4 payment vouchers represent the works the petitioner worked on different days but not for one day but the payment was made on one day. It is not true to suggest that vouchers were issued in the name of Y.Raghu, Y.Srinath, V.Ramulu, Y.R.Raghu, R.Sita Ram and S.Ramulu to deprive the petitioner. 8. Much has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent in favour of the petitioner and against the petitioner respectively. But suffice it to say that those arguments need not be repeated here for the simple reason that MW1 in his cross examination had admitted that Exs.M1 to M27 has been filed by him as per the directions of the Court as they pertain to 1.5.95 to 10.7.96 even if one year is taken a period of 12 months, I have calculated myself it exceeds 240 days and obviously that when period exceeds 240 days in a given year, Sec.25F compulsorily has to be followed”. From the above, it is clear that the workman had put in more than 366 days of continuous service from 01.05.1995 to 10.07.1996, by which it is clear that he was put in continuous service of 240 days in a calendar year. Exs.M.1 to M.27 also reveal that the workman worked from 01.05.1995 to 10.07.1996. Thus, it cannot be said that the workman did not put in 240 days continuous service in a calendar year and the impugned award can be said to be either arbitrary or illegal calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J 9th April, 2010 SUR