HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1258 OF 2001 Dated: 06-11-2009 Between: A.P Beverages Corporation, rep., by its Managing Director, 6th Floor, Samrat Complex, Saifabad, Hyderabad and two others ... APPELLANTS AND Yeddu Abraham Lincon and two others ... RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1258 OF 2001 JUDGEMENT: (per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This appeal arises out of order dated 30-03-2001 in Writ Petition No.4401 of 1992, whereby the learned single Judge set aside proceedings dated 20-03-1992 issued by the Chairman and Managing Director of appellant No. 1 – Corporation. Heard Sri G. Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. Tirumana Rani, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were appointed temporarily in appellant No.1 - Corporation as Accountant-cum-Cashier and Assistant-cum-Cashier respectively in the year 1987 on daily wage basis. Appellant No.2 recommended their cases for regularization on 31-12-1987. As their services were not regularized, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed Writ Petition No. 5301 of 1989 seeking relief of regularization. Interim order dated 13-04-1989 was issued in the said writ petition directing the appellants herein to continue respondent Nos.1 and 2 in service and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 30-02-1992 with a direction to the appellants to consider the cases of respondent Nos.1 and 2 on regular basis, according to the rules and regulations. In pursuance of the said directions, appellant No.2 issued proceedings dated 18-03-1992 by declaring the probation of respondent No.1 on completion of one year by 12-04-1990 as Accountant-cum-Cashier and his services in the said post were regularized with effect from the date of declaration of probation. Similarly, services of respondent No.2 were regularized with effect from 12-04-1990 on completion of probation. By proceedings dated 20-03-1992, appellant No.1 directed appellant No.2 to terminate the services of respondent Nos.1 and 2 by invoking the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’). Appellant No.1 also enclosed termination orders to be served on respondent Nos.1 and 2. These proceedings were questioned in Writ Petition No. 4401 of 1992, which was allowed by the learned single Judge. We have carefully perused the order of the learned single Judge, wherein he has held that as the services of respondent Nos.1 and 2 were already regularized, their services cannot be terminated without following due process of law and that the order passed by appellant No.1 directing appellant No.2 to terminate their services unilaterally is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The facts referred to above have not been disputed by the appellants. Therefore, in our view, the learned single Judge has not committed any error in concluding that the order impugned in the writ petition was in violation of principles of natural justice as appellant No.1 could not have come to an unilateral conclusion that respondent Nos.1 and 2 were not eligible for regularization and, therefore, their services ought to be terminated by invoking Section 25-F of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge and the writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 06-11-2009 ks