HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO. 130 OF 2005 Between: A.P. Beverages Corporation Limited and one another ………….Appellants AND Hon’ble Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Warangal and one another ………….Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner- Corporation, which instituted the writ petition challenging the correctness of the award passed on 30.5.2003 in I.D.No. 130 of 1999 by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, Warangal. It ordered the second respondent- workman to be reinstated to duty as Casual Labour, on daily wages with continuity of service but without backwages. It is stated that the appellant-Corporation has depot at Wyra in Khammam District, where the second respondent workman was engaged as casual workman, on daily wage basis for the purpose of undertaking bottling of Arrack. The case of the Corporation is that he was engaged during the period 1986-87, as and when the work was available. The further case of the corporation was that bottling of arrack was discontinued and arrack was packed in sachets, as it is found more convenient to do so in all respects. Such demand for bottled arrack has fallen in shortly, there was no work for casual employees to be engaged in the unit. Therefore, the Corporation contended that the second respondent-workman himself has stopped reporting from the depot and hence, it is not a case of retrenchment. But however, the labour court/industrial Tribunal, Warangal based upon Ex. W-1, the service certificate issued by the District Manager, Arrack Bottling Unit, Wyra, showing that the writ petitioner has worked between 25.12.1986 to 25.12.1987, came to the conclusion that it is a case of retrenchment, affected in breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the labour Court ordered for reinstatement of the respondent-Workman as a Casual Labour on daily wages with the benefit of continuity of service and without backwages. This award was challenged by the appellant by instituting Writ Petition No. 17921 of 2003. The learned Single Judge held that the labour Court has correctly applied the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in AJAIB SINGH VS. SIRHIND COOPERATIVE MARKETING-CUM-PROCESSING SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED[1], and came to the conclusion that the relief in terms of the provisions of I.D Act cannot be rejected solely on the ground of delay or laches on the part of the workman in approaching the Industrial Tribunal. The learned Standing Counsel for appellant Sri G. Ravi Mohan has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in JAGBIR SINGH VS. HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD AND ANOTHER[2] and INCHARGE OFFICER AND ANOTHER VS. SHANKAR SHETTY[3] and contended that the granting relief of reinstatement by the labour Court is not at all justified inasmuch as the Arrack Bottling Unit itself has been closed down and consequently there is no way that the second respondent –Workman could be reinstated. It is true that the Supreme Court in JAGBIR SINGH’S case (supra-1) and SHANKAR SHETTY’S case (supra-2) that where workmen were engaged as daily wagers for a long period back and where they have hardly served for two or three years, relief of reinstatement and backwages to them cannot be justified and instead monetary compensation would sub-serve the ends of justice. In the instant case, even the claim of the second respondent- workman was that he was engaged on daily wage basis only and he had hardly served one-year period. Further, the appellant-Corporation has wound up this bottling unit, in view of the drastic fall in demand of bottle arrack consumers. Therefore, there is hardly any scope for reinstatement on a daily wage earner. Admittedly, the termination was brought about towards end of 1998, more than 20 years have elapsed. Therefore, following the principles enunciated in JAGBIR SINGH’S case (supra-1), by the Supreme Court, we consider it appropriate to award a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and all other benefits that would meet ends of justice. Hence, appellant-Corporation is directed to pay the second respondent-Workman a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement with continuity of benefit of service. The amount of compensation be paid by way of cross account pay of Demand Draft drawn in the name of workman and dispatched to his address by registered post with acknowledgment due within a period of eight weeks and the second respondent workman would intimate the address to which the said Demand Draft should be sent. With the above observation, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J DATE: 07.12.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies. [1] 1999 SCC (LRS) 1054 [2] (2009) 15 SCC 327 [3] (2010) 9 SCC 126