THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION Nos.6521, 6522 and 6917 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: W.P.No.6521 of 2007 is filed seeking a Certiorari to quash the award dated 09.03.2006 in I.D.No.44 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad. W.P.No.6522 of 2007 is filed seeking a Certiorari to quash the award dated 09.03.2006 in I.D.No.43 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad. W.P.No.6917 of 2007 is filed seeking a Certiorari to quash the award dated 09.03.2006 in I.D.No.42 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘Labour Court’). The second respondents in these writ petitions being NMR workers (for short ‘workmen’) filed above noted I.Ds. under Section 2- A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) as services were said to have been terminated by the petitioners - Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for short ‘HMWSSB’ / ‘management’) orally and without giving regard to the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act and without there being misconduct alleged and enquired into. It appears that the workmen were appointed as NMRs in the plantation cell division of HMWSSB on 01.08.1987 and when their services were terminated abruptly on 28.02.2003, they have approached the Labour Court. It was their case before the Labour Court that they worked as NMRs for more than fourteen years continuously and when their services were not being regularized, they along with other similarly situated persons filed O.A.No.1222 of 2001 seeking regularization of their services before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which passed orders on 05.03.2001 directing the management to regularize the services of workmen. But the same was not done by the management and on the other hand, the management not allowed the workmen to duty from 28.02.2003 onwards without there being any reason and not serving any notice as required under the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Therefore, the workmen are constrained to file the above noted I.Ds. before the Labour Court. The management filed detailed counter-affidavits before the Labour Court denying the allegations made by the workmen as to the joining in service on 01.08.1987 and also continuously worked for more than fourteen years. However, the management admitted that the workmen were engaged as casual labour for plantation work, which is seasonal work and by the end of the season, they were automatically disengaged and therefore, their engagement was with the implied terms of the employment to the effect that their services will automatically be disengaged after completion of the season and therefore, the question of the workmen continuously working with HMWSSB does not arise. When the terms of job of workmen was impliedly only for the season, the workmen cannot themselves claim to be ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Act, where it is stipulated that the terms of employment may be express or implied. It was further contended that as their engagement was seasonal in nature, there was an implied contract of employment between the workmen and the management and therefore, his disengagement does not fall under the definition of retrenchment as per Section 2(oo) of the Act. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of workmen, they themselves were examined as W.W.1 respectively in the three I.Ds. and Exs.W-1 to W-8 were marked in I.D.Nos.44 and 43 of 2003 and Exs.W- 1 to W-9 were marked in I.D.No.42 of 2003. On behalf of management, M.W.1 was examined and no document was marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the workmen have continuously worked with HMWSSB and have completed 240 days of continuous service by the date of the termination from the service and the termination is contrary to the provisions of Section 25- F of the Act. To record such finding, the Labour Court relied upon the evidence on behalf of management i.e., M.W.1, who stated that he was not sure that how many of the NMRs mentioned in Ex.W-8 are juniors to the workmen. He admitted that they have not filed the seniority list of the NMRs or the list of NMRs, whose services have been regularized and also not filed the service particulars and records of the workmen and their juniors. No records were produced relating to the NMRs as referred in Ex.W-8 before the Labour Court. Apart from that it was found that in M.P.No.3 of 1993, it was recorded that the workmen worked at least for five years continuously with HMWSSB. The nature of the work attended to by the workmen was admittedly in plantation cell division, obviously in the domain of HMWSSB connected or related to water supply and sewerage regulation. No notice of any kind was issued to the workmen, while terminating their services, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. The Labour Court passed the above noted awards in the said I.Ds. directing the management to reinstate the workmen into service as NMR workers which job they were doing at the time of their termination in the same status with 25% back-wages at the rate they were being paid from the date of their termination on 28.02.2003 till the date of the awards. Aggrieved thereby, the management filed the present writ petitions. It is the case of the management that as required under the Act the workmen have not discharged their initial burden of having served for more than 240 days continuous service preceding the date of their oral termination on 28.02.2003. However, admittedly, the workmen being NMRs, no appointment orders were served on them. Earlier, when they filed M.P.No.3 of 1993, a finding was recorded that they worked continuously for more than five years and therefore, they are entitled for difference of wages and in fact the order in M.P.No.3 of 1993 was given effect to. Noting prevented the management from producing the records to show that the workmen were never engaged for 240 days preceding the date of their termination. No such efforts were made by the management. On the other hand, the records were suppressed by the management and now a plea is raised by the learned counsel for the management that the workmen failed to discharge their initial burden of proving that they have worked continuously for 240 days. This is a futile effort made to scuttle the interests of the workmen. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the management relied on the judgment of the Apex Court i n M/s.Essen Deinki vs. Rajiv Kumar[1]. Neither the fact that the juniors to the workmen are working is denied nor the records are produced. Even, the management never stated in their counter- affidavit before the Labour Court that the workmen have not put in 240 days of continuous service preceding the date of their termination. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the finding recorded by the Labour Court holding that the management violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act and the oral termination is liable to be set aside cannot be found fault with. In fact in a case of this nature, the workmen are entitled for full back- wages. Some how, the Labour Court in its wisdom while exercising the powers vested in it under Section 11-A of the Act granted only 25% of the back-wages, which in my opinion need not be disturbed. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error either on facts or on law calling for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There are no merits in these writ petitions and the same are liable to the dismissed. Accordingly, these three Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (C.V. RAMULU, J) 17th February, 2011 GHN [1] 2002(7) Supreme 393