IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.1415 of 2002 Between: M.Krishna … Petitioner And The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Warangal and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.1415 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Certiorari and quash the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in I.D. No.10 of 1997 on 07.02.2000 as bad in law and unsustainable and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with full back wages and other consequential benefits, in the interest of justice. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he worked continuously from August, 1985 to March, 1989 as heavy vehicle driver in the respondents Corporation. As there was proposal to call for candidates through employment exchange to fill up the vacancies, the petitioner filed W.P. No.9447 of 1988, for his absorption in the permanent post, and W.P. No.16928 of 1988, to restrain the respondent from terminating his service and continuity of employment. Pending the writ petitions, directed the respondents therein to continue the petitioner in service, if he is in service, as on the date of order i.e. 11.11.1988, but ultimately, the writ petitions, filed by the petitioner, were dismissed on 13.09.1991 observing that the petitioner did not work continuously under the respondents Corporation and did not complete 240 days in a calendar year. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.A. No.1304 of 1991 wherein, while permitting the petitioner to withdraw the appeal, this Court gave him liberty to approach the appropriate Court for necessary relief. Therefore, the petitioner filed I.D. No.10 of 1997 seeking to set aside his oral termination orders and for his reinstatement into service on the ground that his termination from service is in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’). The learned Tribunal, eventually, dismissed the I.D. No.10 of 1997 holding that the termination of the petitioner by the Corporation is not in violation of Section 25-F of the Act and so, the petitioner is not entitled to any reinstatement into service in the Corporation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, counter has been filed, inter alia, stated that during the relevant time, the Corporation at Warangal depot had only three vehicles and there were three heavy vehicle drivers. It was only to meet any absenteeism of the regular drivers and on special exigencies, the depot used to engage casual heavy vehicle drivers. It is also submitted that the records produced by the E.S.I. Corporation clearly showed that the petitioner was engaged by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited only for 128 days during the period from 01.04.1986 to 30.09.1988 and by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for 10½ days during October, 1988. In the light of this material, the learned Tribunal had rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not employed in a continuous period of one year of service. Eventually, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though he put in 2½ years of service as heavy vehicle driver with the respondent Corporation, without his absorption into service, the respondent Corporation has proposed to fill up the vacancies of heavy vehicle driver. Therefore, he filed writ petitions and writ appeal wherein, he was permitted to approach proper forum. Therefore, he raised industrial dispute before the learned Tribunal on the ground that he worked more than 240 days continuously from August, 1985. In support of his claim, he placed reliance on the contribution of provident fund in the office of E.S.I. Corporation, Warangal. Contradicting the claim of the petitioner, the respondent Corporation submitted that the petitioner was engaged in the respondent Corporation purely on casual basis, as per the workload or on account of shortfall in manpower and he never worked for more than 240 days in any period. It is also submitted that contribution of provident fund will not give any right to seek reinstatement into service. The learned Tribunal, for considering the said issue, framed the point for consideration whether the petitioner worked as heavy vehicle driver in the respondent Corporation continuously for 240 days prior to his oral termination in 1989. After perusal of the material evidence adduced by the petitioner, the learned Tribunal found that the entire period from 01.04.1986 to 30.09.1988, the petitioner worked for 128 days only and also found that there was no material filed by the petitioner to say that he worked till March, 1989. Further, it is also found that the petitioner worked only as casual worker on daily wages as and when the services are requisitioned and he never worked continuously without any break in the entire period, before his oral termination. Therefore, there is no violation of Section 25-F of the Act. As could be seen from the impugned award, it is clear that whatever the evidence adduced by the petitioner, in support of his claim, the learned Tribunal considered the same in proper perspective and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought for by him. In the absence of any other material in support of his claim and based on the material made available before the learned Tribunal and after proper appreciation of the same, the learned Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Even before this Court also, nothing has been placed to show that the material finding given by the learned Tribunal is contrary to the record made available to the learned Tribunal on the aspect of working days and it is a question of fact. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that no case is made out by the petitioner warranting interference of this Court with the impugned award and I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned award and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 24.01.2011 LSK