IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No.5324 of 1998 DATED 11-7-2007 BETWEEN M/s.Chowgule Matrix Hobs Limited Represented by its Technical Director, Mr.S.V.Shanmugam. .. Petitioner And The Honourable Labour Court-II, 4th floor, Chandra Vihar, M.J.Road, Hyderabad and 2 others. .. Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.5324 of 1998 ORDER: Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad in I.D.No.10 of 1996 dated 3.12.1997, the petitioner company has approached this Court. The 2nd respondent-workman in his application before the Labour Court stated that he was initially appointed as a highly skilled operator in the petitioner company with effect from 30.5.1978; that he was promoted to the post of technical assistant with effect from 21.1.1982, despite which his services were being utilized as a machine operator till the date of accident on 8.1.1994 while he was operating the machine in the factory, that the accident arose out of and in the course of performance of his duties, that he was admitted on the same day at NIMS, Hyderabad and was in hospital for about six months, that he joined duty in January 1995, that while he was working his time punch card was removed and he was asked to leave the factory premises and that an order of termination was passed on 14.8.1995 removing him on medical grounds stating that he would not be able to perform the job which he was discharging prior to the accident. It is the case of the 2nd respondent-workman that he suffered only 40% disability and that the Doctor had also opined that with further treatment, the activity of the hand, which was subjected to injury, would be restored functionally. Questioning the order of termination, the 2nd respondent- workman approached the labour Court, Hyderabad under Section 2- A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking a direction for his reinstatement in any alternate service suitable to his qualification and experience or at least in the post of ‘Technical Assistant’ to which he was promoted with effect from 21.1.1982. The Labour Court in its award dated 3.12.1997, held that the extent of disability suffered by the workman did not warrant his termination, that, when a workman suffered a non-schedule injury, his incapacity to work had to be in relation to the work for which he was engaged at the time of the accident, (and not in relation to any other job) with like duty on the same pay and that the petitioner was entitled for a lighter job i.e. the post of technical assistant to which he was already promoted 15 years ago. The Labour Court further observed that merely because the workman was paid compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, it could not be said that he was not entitled for wages, that the workman was promoted as a technical assistant through proceedings dated 21.1.1982 which was communicated to him vide letter in Ex.W.4 and that the workman was promoted as a production supervisor vide letter dated 15.2.1991, marked as Ex.W6 and that this fact was also undisputed. Sri P.Nageswar Sree, learned counsel for the petitioner, would emphatically contend that Ex.W6 is a letter dated 15.2.1991 wherein the 2nd respondent-workman had been offered appointment in another company as a production supervisor, that the 2nd respondent workman was never promoted as a production supervisor in the petitioner company and the nature of the duties to be discharged as a production supervisor were not the duties which the 2nd respondent was required to discharge in the petitioner company. The fact that the 2nd respondent-workman was not promoted as a production supervisor in the petitioner company is also not disputed by Sri Rajendra Bussa, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-workman. The Labour Court also observed that there was no material on record to show that the 2nd respondent workman could not work as a production supervisor, that the management was not justified in discharging him from service and that he ought to have been taken into service as a production supervisor and accordingly directed his reinstatement into service as a production supervisor with full back wages and continuity of service. Since both Sri P.Nageswar Sree, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajendra Bussa, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-workman would agree that the 2nd respondent workman was not promoted as a production supervisor in the petitioner company, the award of the labour Court directing reinstatement of the 2nd respondent-workman as a production supervisor must necessarily be set aside. The fact, however, remains that the labour Court has also noted that the petitioner was promoted as a technical assistant with effect from 21.1.1982 and, therefore, the order of reinstatement of the 2nd respondent-workman could have been made to the said post of technical assistant. Sri P.Nageswar Sree, learned counsel for the petitioner, would, however, contend that there is no finding recorded by the labour court that the 2nd respondent was fit enough to discharge the duties of a technical assistant. I find considerable force in this submission of the learned counsel. Since the 2nd respondent workman was never promoted as a production supervisor in the petitioner company, the labour Court was not justified in directing his reinstatement as a production supervisor. The fact, however, remains that the 2nd respondent-workman, having been earlier promoted as a technical assistant, could have been directed to be reinstated to the said post if he was found fit to discharge the duties attached thereto. Since the labour court has not recorded its finding on the question as to whether the 2nd respondent is in a position to discharge the duties of a technical assistant, it is appropriate that the matter be remanded to the Tribunal for its consideration on the question whether the 2nd respondent-workman is fit to discharge the duties of a technical assistant and, thereafter pass an award in accordance with law. Since the 2nd respondent workman is being paid wages last drawn under Section 17-B of the Act during the pendency of the writ petition, for the past nearly a decade, ends of justice would be met if the petitioner herein is directed to continue to pay wages under Section 17-B of the Act to the 2nd respondent till the matter is heard and the award passed by the labour Court. Since the dispute relates to the year 1996, and more than a decade has elapsed since then, it is necessary that the labour Court hears and passes an award at the earliest, in any event, not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt: 11.7.2007 msv.