IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 21273 of 1999 Between: V. Rajendra Babu S/o V. Gurappa (late) R/o Kurnool, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director A.P. State Financial Corporation 5-9-194, Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad 2 The Branch Manager, A.P. State Financial Corporation Kurnool 3 The Branch Manager, A.P. State Financial Corporation Ananthapur 4 The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records relating to I.D.No.230/1995 dt: 20-10-1998 on the file of the Chairman-cum-Presiding Oﬃcer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ananthapur, and quash the same and further direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with full back wages, with all other attendant beneﬁts and to regularise the service of the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.A.CHAYA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI A.K. JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21273 OF 1999 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner questions the award dated 20.10.1998 passed in I.D.No.230 of 1995 on the ﬁle of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. 2. The aforesaid dispute was raised by the petitioner herein, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the I.D. Act’), before the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, questioning the alleged oral termination of his services with eﬀect from 01.07.1995 by the 3rd respondent- Branch Manager, A.P. State Financial Corporation, Anantapur. 3. Before the Tribunal, it was the case of the petitioner that he initially joined as a Typist in the respondent Corporation at Kurnool branch on 19.12.1987. He worked there for about six months and thereafter his services were shifted to Anantapur branch and that he has completed more than ﬁve years of service. It is the grievance of the petitioner that instead of regularization, his services were orally terminated with eﬀect from 01.07.1995. It was also the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that as much as he was not holding any managerial post and was not drawing more than Rs.1,600/- per month towards salary, he falls within the category of ‘workman’ under the provisions of the I.D. Act, and therefore the oral termination of his services is in contravention of the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the I.D. Act and Rules 78 and 79 of the Rules framed under the said Act. The petitioner, therefore, has prayed for declaration of oral termination of his services as illegal and arbitrary, and sought for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him into service with continuity of service and with full backwages and other attendant benefits. 4. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the respondents before the Tribunal, while disputing the various allegations made by the petitioner, it was stated that the petitioner was entrusted with the job of typing on daily wage basis and he worked totally for a period of 136 days in two spells between 18.12.1987 to 29.02.1989. As such, it was the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not at all a workman within the meaning of the I.D. Act, as he never worked continuously for a period of 240 days in a calendar year. 5. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the workman, the petitioner himself was examined as W.W.1 and Exs.W1 and W2 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 6. The Tribunal, having considered the oral and documentary evidence on record, has recorded a ﬁnding that the petitioner has not proved that he has worked continuously for a period of 240 days in a calendar year in the respondent Corporation. Accepting the plea of the respondents that the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis for typing work, and in the absence of any proof of his working for a continuous period of 240 days in a calendar year in the respondent Corporation, the Tribunal has dismissed the dispute raised by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition by the petitioner-workman. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner has worked for more than ﬁve years, the Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the petition ﬁled by the petitioner. He has relied on a letter, dated 14.03.1988, addressed by the Branch Manager, Kurnool, to the Managing Director of the Corporation, and the work allocation statement, dated 28.07.1988, and also the letter, dated 10.08.1993, addressed by the Branch Manager, Vijayawada, to the Chairman, Tadipatri Municipality, Anantapur. 8. From a perusal of the material filed before the Tribunal, it is clear that the petitioner has not proved by any evidence that he has continuously worked for a period of 240 days in a calendar year, in the respondent Corporation. In the letter, dated 14.03.1988, addressed by the Branch Manager, Kurnool, to the Managing Director of the Corporation as well as in the work allocation statement, dated 28.07.1988, the work entrusted to the petitioner is described as ‘typing’, and the said letter or statement would in no way further improve the case of the petitioner to prove that he worked in the respondent Corporation continuously for a period of 240 days. The letter, dated 10.08.1993, addressed by the Branch Manager, Vijayawada to the Chairman of Tadipatri Municipality, Anantapur, recommending for appointment of the petitioner in A.P. State Electricity Board, also cannot be taken into account for the reason that in the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled before the Tribunal, the respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner has not worked for a period of 240 days continuously in a year, and the said letter cannot be looked in isolation, leaving the defence put forth by the respondents before the Tribunal. 9. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioner, having failed to prove that he worked for a continuous period of 240 days in a year in the respondent Corporation, was rightly denied the relief prayed for. 10. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY 25th August, 2008 IBL