HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.18534 of 2005 ORDER:- In this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners are seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash the award dated 21-9-2004 passed in I.D.No.103 of 2000 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur (labour Court). 2. The first petitioner is a private limited company by name Ankur Seeds Private Limited of Nagpur and the second petitioner is the Manager of its branch at Kurnool and hereinafter wards they shall together be referred to as employer. The first respondent Palle Madhu claims to be the workman of the employer. 3. The first respondent raised the industrial dispute i.e. I.D.No.103 of 2000 before the labour Court with the following case. He was appointed as helper in the month of March 1997 in the employer’s branch office at Kurnool and the employer used to pay him Rs.800/- per month towards salary at the initial stage and that subsequently it was enhanced to Rs.1,200/- per month. It is his case that from March 1997 to June 1997 he worked as Cleaner of a mini lorry bearing No.AP-09-C-8543 of the employer. It is his further case that on 29-10-1999 when he was on duty on above mini lorry and was proceeding from Kurnool to some place in Karnataka, the said lorry met with an accident at Salkapuram and in that accident, he sustained grievous injuries and he was bed ridden for 20 days. 4. His further version is that the employer granted him medical leave for that period and after recovery, he again reported for duty on 23-12-1999, but the employer did not allow him to work and thus orally terminated his services. He pleaded that the employer did not give him one month notice or pay compensation in lieu thereof before termination and he was also not paid retrenchment compensation though he worked for more than 240 days continuously before the date of termination. He therefore sought for the relief of reinstatement. 5. The stand of the employer before the labour Court was that the first respondent was never its regular employee and it only employed him on daily wage basis and he was also under no obligation to work exclusively for it (employer). It then admitted the accident mentioned by the first respondent and stated that after the accident, the first respondent never reported for duty. Its plea is that the question of termination of service does not arise as the first respondent himself did not report for duty and it also pleaded that he never worked for a continuous period of 240 days and consequently the question of issuing any notice or payment of compensation does not arise. 6. Both the employer and the first respondent let in their oral and documentary evidence before the labour Court in support of their respective cases. The labour Court after considering the matter by its impugned award dated 21-9-2004 upheld the case of the first respondent and concluded that he was not paid compensation in terms of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short Act), and in that view of the matter, it held that his termination was illegal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. 7. Sri P.Roy Reddy, the learned counsel for petitioners argued that the findings of the labour Court are contrary to the evidence and he pointed out that the case of the petitioners that the first respondent was not their regular employee and the question of termination cannot arise ought to be accepted. On the other hand, Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy, the learned counsel for first respondent supported the award. 8. It should be noted that the labour Court in para-13 of its award discussed the claim of the first respondent that he worked for more than 240 days. The labour Court stated that the first respondent filed I.A.No.138 of 2003 for a direction to the employer for production of vouchers and other records to show that he worked for more than 240 days before his termination, but the employer did not file the same though the said petition was allowed. It then considered the evidence of M.W1 i.e. the management witness by name B.V.Ramanaih. The evidence of this M.W1 who is stated to be a Production Officer of employer at Kurnool would show that in his cross examination he admitted that he knows the first respondent and he worked as the cleaner of the mini lorry and that he also admitted the accident mentioned by the cleaner. This M.W1 proceeded to say that after the accident the employer admitted him in the hospital and also paid him salary during the period of his treatment. The labour Court relied upon this version of M.W1 and the failure of the management to produce the records ordered in I.A.No.138 of 2003 referred to supra to conclude that the first respondent was its regular employee and he worked for more than 240 days as otherwise the employer would not have paid him leave salary and also spent amounts for his treatment. 9. Added to this, this M.W1 also stated that when the first respondent reported for duty the employer’s management told him that he should withdraw the case and join duty and perhaps he was referring to the motor accidents claims case filed by the first respondent. In addition to this, M.W1 also stated that the duties particulars of the first respondent would be mentioned in the log book of the mini lorry and he also admitted that the employer could not produce the records to negative the case of the first respondent that he worked for more than 240 days preceding his removal. The labour Court rightly, in my opinion, relied upon the above material to uphold the case of the first respondent. 10. It should be noted that though the first respondent failed to discharge his initial burden to show that he was employed for more than 240 days before removal, the above material on record consisting of the evidence of M.W.1 would itself show that it probablises the case of the first respondent and that is in my opinion sufficient to hold that the first respondent’s plea stands proved on the above aspect. One aspect to be noted is that there is no written termination order here, but that does not make any difference. It is well settled now that termination can be even by oral order and that is sufficient to constitute a cause of action for a workman to raise an industrial dispute. 11. The learned counsel for petitioners raised various contentions, but none of them merit acceptance in view of the above evidence of M.W.1 who is none other than employer’s witness. Thus what should be noted is that the findings recorded by the labour Court can be said to be based on evidence and cannot be said to be perverse. As oral termination can also give a cause of action for raising an industrial dispute it cannot be said that the labour Court has no jurisdiction. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, it follows that it is not a fit case for interference. 12. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, it follows that this writ petition should fail and it is dismissed. No costs. It goes without saying that it shall be open for the employer to exercise its rights regarding retrenchment or lay-off in accordance with law. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 17th August 2011 TJMR/CVRK