IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19382 of 1999 Between: Mohd. Khalid, S/o Mohd.Ibrahim R/o. Jahamuna, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad MCH Buildings, Near Liberty, Hyderabad. 3 Government of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 500 022 ...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 will be pleased to issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling for the records quash the award in so far as granting no relief to the petitioner and consequently direct the respondent no.2 to reinstate the petitioner into services with back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits by setting aside the award passed in I.D.No.3/1999. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.19382 of 1999 Order: The petitioner, in this writ petition, has questioned the award dated 05-04-1999 passed by the Labour Court – I, A.P., Hyderabad in I.D.No.3 of 1999. 2. The petitioner raised the aforesaid I.D. by way of application under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 questioning the action of the second respondent, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad in disengaging his services and seeks reinstatement. Before the Labour Court, it was his case that as he was appointed as section writer and promoted to the post lower division clerk, his termination is illegal and arbitrary. It was the case of the respondent-Corporation that the petitioner was appointed as a work charged employee temporarily, for a specific period in a specified project, i.e. for the election and census work and after completion of the said work he was disengaged. 3. Even according to the petitioner, his services were disengaged from 21-09-1991. He himself approached the Labour Court by raising a dispute in the year 1999. The Labour Court, by the impugned order, rejected the claim of the petitioner pointing out the delay and laches on his part in questioning his disengagement. The Labour Court has also observed that the petitioner was appointed as a work charged employee on temporary basis for a specified work. 4. Though it is the case of the petitioner that he was disengaged without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in spite of his continuous service of 240 days in a calendar year, but, however, it is to be noted that the petitioner was not diligent in pursuing the remedies available to him. Though his services were disengaged as early as in the year 1991, he himself filed application under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the year 1999. Further, though the petitioner was promoted to the post of lower division clerk, he was reverted to his original post and his services were disengaged. As he was appointed as a work charged employee on temporary basis to attend specified work, i.e. election and census work, he cannot be said to be retrenched, within the meaning of the provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As much as the petitioner was not in service from 21-09-1991 and as there was abnormal delay and laches on his part in approaching the Labour Court, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the order of the Labour court at this stage. 5. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. August 22, 2008 MRR