THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.25377, 25388, 25391, 25392, 25395 and 25396 of 2006 Dated: 07.06.2010 W.P.No. 25377 of 2006: Between: The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District .. Petitioner And Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chairman, And another. .. Respondents W.P.No. 25388 of 2006 Between: The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District .. Petitioner And Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chairman, And another. .. Respondents W.P.No. 25391 of 2006 Between: The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District .. Petitioner And Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chairman, And another. .. Respondents W.P.No. 25392 of 2006 The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District .. Petitioner And Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chairman, And another. .. Respondents W.P.No. 25395 of 2006 The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District .. Petitioner And Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chairman, And another. .. Respondents W.P.No. 25396 of 2006 The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District .. Petitioner And Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chairman, And another. .. Respondents COMMON ORDER: Since common questions of law and fact arise for consideration in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order. In all these writ petitions, petitioner is the management and 2nd respondents are the workmen. It appears, all the workmen worked as Safai Karmachari in Rajendranagar Municipality, and by orders dated 03.08.1999, their services were abruptly terminated without following the provisions and procedure as required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the I.D.Act’). Thereupon, the workmen filed respective I.D.Nos.98, 94, 93, 97, 99, 96 of 2000 on the file of the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, for the relief of reinstatement with backwages, and the same were subsequently transferred to Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, and re-numbered as I.D.Nos.64, 60, 59, 63, 65 and 62 of 2002 respectively. Before the Industrial Tribunal, though each workman let in evidence individually, so far as management is concerned, common evidence was let in. The Industrial Tribunal, having found that the workmen served for more than 240 days, and therefore, termination of their services without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act is arbitrary and illegal, directed the management to reinstate the workmen into service as daily wage Safai Karmachari with 30% backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits, by separate orders dated 28.07.2006. Aggrieved thereby, these writ petitions are filed by the management. Learned counsel for the management strenuously contended that absolutely there is no evidence to show that the workmen worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year to attract the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. Further, the Industrial Tribunal has relied upon the sole documentary evidence of letter dated 28.05.1999 addressed to the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, A.P., Hyderabad, and reply thereto, and erroneously came to the conclusion that the management has violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. Learned counsel for the workmen advanced arguments supporting the case of the workmen. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned awards and other material placed on record. The controversy trigged with the audit objection for engaging 15 Safai Karmacharis as NMR workers in violation of provisions of Act 2 of 1994. When wages were not paid to them, the workmen approached the competent authorities seeking a direction to the management to pay the arrears of wages. As a consequence, through letter dated 28.05.1999, the petitioner sought clarification from the Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration, who in turn, vide letter dated 21.07.1999, replied to the petitioner to pay wages to the workmen, if not already paid, and to retrench them as per Section 25-F of I.D. Act and Section 7(2) of Act 2 of 1994 with consultation of Municipal Standing Counsel (Telangana Area) immediately. Basing on the said directions, the petitioner issued retrenchment notice to the workmen. In the evidence before the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner admitted that the services of the workmen were terminated on the basis of the advice given by the Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration. The workmen, in fact, did not produce any authenticated documents in support of their version that they worked with the Municipality since 1993. The management produced the documents Exs.M1 and M2 in support of their plea that the workmen worked only for a period of 202 days, but the evidence of WW2, who is none other than the Commissioner of the Municipality, MW2 and documents Exs.W8 and W9 do not support their version. WW.2, in his evidence before the Tribunal, admitted that basing on the records available in the Municipality, he addressed letter dated 28.05.1999, seeking clarification from the Commissioner & Director, Municipal Administration, wherein he mentioned that since July, 1997 onwards the persons described in the said letter were working in the Municipality. The names of the workmen find place in the said letter. Considering these aspects, the Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that the workmen have been working with the Municipality since 1997 onwards and they have put in continuous service of 240 days and, as such, they cannot be retrenched unless the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act are complied with. However, observing that the service of the workmen was short and not a service of permanent character and that the workmen were not technically qualified, the Tribunal thought it fit to award 30% backwages. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the Industrial Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned awards directing the management to reinstate the workmen into service as daily wage Safai Karmacharis with 30% backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits, and no interference is warranted with the impugned awards, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the writ petitions are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 07.06.010 v v