IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26073 of 1998 Between: 1 The Managing Director/Vice-Chariman, A.P.S.I.D.C., HUDA- Commercial Complex, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Engineer A.P.S.I.D.C. Division, Ananthapur. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 S. Ramakrishna Reddy (dismissed) Mallasigaiahgaripalli, Reddipalli Post, Ananthapur District. 2 The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners : SMT.KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for Respondent No.1 : None. The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash award, dated 30.12.1997 in I.D.No.245 of 1994 on the file of respondent No.2. Heard Smt.Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the petitioners. No one appeared for respondent No.1. The writ petition was dismissed against respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 joined the petitioners – Corporation as a daily wage worker in the year 1984. In the first instance, his services were terminated in the year 1985. He filed I.D.No.118 of 1987 before the Labour Court. On respondent No.1 undertaking that he will not claim back wages, the Corporation issued proceedings, dated 22.06.1990 reinstating him with effect from 20.06.1990. Again the services of respondent No.1 were terminated with effect from 03.05.1994. He raised another industrial dispute i.e. I.D.No.245 of 1994 before respondent No.2. By the impugned award, the said I.D. was partly allowed by directing the reinstatement of respondent No.1, but without back wages. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the award. The two grounds on which the order of retrenchment was set aside were that the petitioners failed to follow the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) and also the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act in considering respondent No.1 for reemployment. Though learned counsel for the petitioners made strenuous efforts to persuade me to set aside the award, I am of the view that the reasoning of the Labour Court, at least on violation of Section 25-F of the Act by the petitioners, is based on proper analysis of the evidence adduced before it. While it is the case of respondent No.1 that neither a retrenchment notice, nor compensation in lieu thereof was paid as mandated under Section 25-F of the Act, the case of the petitioners is that a cheque was prepared on 03.05.1994 and the same was sent to respondent No.1 by registered post with acknowledgement due and that respondent No.1 refused to receive the same. Even accepting the said explanation, the Labour Court found that there is no material to show, when the cheque was dispatched and whether as on 03.05.1994 when the termination was brought into effect, the compensation amount was offered. In my considered view, in the absence of any evidence adduced by the petitioners that retrenchment compensation in lieu of one month’s notice was offered as on the date of termination, such a retrenchment falls foul of mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. As the petitioners failed to show that the compensation was offered on 03.05.1994, I do not find any illegality in the finding of the Labour Court that the retrenchment of respondent No.1 is in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. I further find that the Labour Court considering the poor financial position of petitioners denied respondent No.1 back wages. This approach of Labour Court, in my opinion, is equitable, which balanced the interests of both the parties. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated:26.12.2008 GJ