IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.21462 of 2001 DATE:06.12.2010 Between: K.Seshagiri Rao …… Petitioner And: Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam And another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.21462 of 2001 ORDER: Aggrieved by award dated 04.09.1999 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D. No.161 of 1991 dismissing his petition filed under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the Act), the petitioner approached this Court seeking writ of Certiorari in respect of the said award. 2) There is no dispute that the petitioner was working as manufacturing chemist of the 2nd respondent in their unit relating to manufacture of Saline and Dextrose. Due to some differences with the management, the petitioner stopped attending the unit from 01.10.1986. Waiting for more than two months, the 2nd respondent sent memo dated 19.12.2006 (marked as Ex.W-2 and Ex.M-14) to the petitioner terminating his services. Thereupon the petitioner approached the conciliation officer and the conciliation proceedings came to an end in August, 1987. After 4 years, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent/Labour Court in the year 1991 and filed application under Section 2(A)(2) of the Act. The Labour Court after enquiry came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act as he was in supervisory cadre and that therefore is not entitled for any relief on his application. 3) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act and that he was only a manufacturing chemist without he participating either in the management or any supervision of other workers. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent’s counsel contended that the petitioner as manufacturing chemist was in the supervisory cadre and that he was whole and sole in the unit and that he was running the unit and that without his presence in the unit, the unit could not be run at all. The Labour Court basing on the petitioner’s signature on the application for licence and also maintenance of records by the petitioner in his own hand writing, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was in the supervisory capacity in the 2nd respondent unit and that therefore, he is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. Without the signature of a Chemist/Chief chemist or manufacturing chemist on the application for licence, no licence can be awarded in favour of a person who does not hold pharmacy qualifications for manufacture of pharmaceutical products like Saline and Dextrose. The Management has to first appoint a chemist before applying for licence for drug licence for manufacture of drugs. From that fact alone, one cannot come to the conclusion that the petitioner was in the supervisory capacity. The 2nd respondent’s unit was a very small unit consisting of 16 workers including the petitioner and another person who is styled as analytical chemist. Simply because some of the records and registers are in the hand writings of the petitioner, it will not make him a supervisor or a manager of the unit. The evidence does not show that the petitioner was exercising supervisory power on other workmen in relation to their work or in granting of leaves etc., In those circumstances, I am of the opinion that finding of the 1st respondent that the petitioner was not a workman and was working in supervisory capacity in the unit, is based on no evidence. 4) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel placing reliance on The State Bank of India V. N.Sundara Money[1] of the Supreme Court that when services of the petitioner were terminated without any domestic enquiry and when services of the petitioner were terminated without complying with the requirements under Section 25F of the Act, then such termination becomes void and illegal and that therefore, there is no other relief which can be granted to the petitioner except directing his reinstatement into service. 5) But the question of directing the petitioner’s reinstatement in the 2nd respondent’s unit does not arise at all in view of the subsequent events after his abandonment of service in that unit, to the affect that the unit was closed as there could be no manufacturing process in the absence of the petitioner in the unit for nearly three months even though the management was paying salaries to other employees and it resulted in the unit going into losses and the creditors liquidating the unit. Thus, as on today, the 2nd respondent’s unit is not functioning at all. Therefore, the question of reinstating the petitioner in non-existent non-functional unit may not arise at all. There is no dispute that the petitioner was paid his salary/wages until the end of September, 1986 when he worked. The petitioner did not attend to his work from 01.10.1986 onwards and the petitioner had abandoned his work in the 2nd respondent’s unit. Waiting for more than 2 ½ months, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned termination memo to the petitioner. Ultimately drug licence of the unit was cancelled and the unit was closed in December, 1988. In those circumstances, the only relief which this Court can grant to the petitioner is by way of awarding retrenchment compensation in terms of Section 25(F)(b) of the Act which is equivalent to 15 days of average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months, subject to proof of his length of service. 6) In the result, the writ petition is disposed of without costs directing the 2nd respondent to pay retrenchment compensation as contemplated under Section 25(F)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 06, 2010 ksh [1] AIR 1976 SC 1111