THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 31925 OF 1997 Dated: 17.02.2011 Between: The Principal, A.P.Social Welfare Residential School and others ..... Petitioners AND The Chairman & Presiding Officer and another .....Respondents The Court made the following:- THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 31925 OF 1997 ORDER : The Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential School, Tenugupudi village filed this writ petition aggrieved by the award dated 12.05.1997 passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D.No.299 of 1995. It is not disputed before this Court that the 2nd respondent herein was appointed as a contingent employee in the 1st petitioner school in the year 1989 and he continued as such till 31.03.1991. Contending that his removal from service was contrary to Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the I.D.Act’), the 2nd respondent herein filed I.D.No.299 of 1995 under Section 2A (2) of the I.D.Act. In spite of several opportunities granted, the management/the writ petitioners failed to file any counter. In the circumstances, the Tribunal below proceeded with the enquiry. The 2nd respondent herein got himself examined as WW.1 and he was also cross- examined by the counsel for the management. However, the management did not choose to produce any evidence on its behalf. On appreciation of the material available on record, the Tribunal below recorded a finding that the workmen/2nd respondent herein worked continuously from 1987 to 1991 and that his removal without issuing notice as required under Section 25-F of the I.D.Act was illegal. Accordingly, the Tribunal below directed reinstatement of the 2nd respondent. However, back wages and continuity service were denied. The said award dated 12.05.1997 is under challenge in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. The impugned award is assailed primarily on the ground that the 2nd respondent did not put in continuous service and therefore, notice under Section 25-F was not necessary. The material available on record shows that the 2nd respondent had worked from 1987 to 1991 except for small breaks in between. Even the 1st petitioner could not dispute the same. Hence, the finding recorded by the Tribunal below cannot be held to be erroneous. This Court is also satisfied that all the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal below are based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. The 1st petitioner failed to make out any case to show that the impugned award suffered from an error of jurisdiction or error of fact or law apparent on the face of the record. Hence, the interference by this Court in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction is not warranted. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 17.02.2011 Ivd