IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.19468 of 1999 Between: A.Hameed Khan (died) per LRs., Smt.Pasha Begum and five others. … Petitioners And The Labour Court-III, reptd., by its Presiding Officer, Chandravihar Building, 4th Floor, M.J.Road, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao. Counsel for respondents : None This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash award dated 30-12-1996 passed by respondent No.1-Labour Court in I.D.No.539 of 1993 in so far as its denying back wages and other benefits to the petitioners except to the extent of one year salary as compensation is concerned. The husband of petitioner No.1 (for short “the workman”) was appointed as attender by respondent No.2 in the year 1979. He was allowed to work for about 12 years. As he was not permitted to resume his duties from 15-4-1991, he raised the industrial dispute before respondent No.1. After allowing adducing of evidence, both oral and documentary, by both the parties, respondent No.1 arrived at the conclusion that the retrenchment of the workman was in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”). Respondent No.1 took note of the fact that the workman died during the pendency of the dispute before it and that, therefore, it was not possible to order for reinstatement. It, however, directed payment of salary at the last drawn pay of Rs.350/- per month for one year. Being dissatisfied with the said award, the petitioners, who are the legal representatives of the deceased-workman, filed the present Writ Petition. It appears that respondent No.2 has not questioned the award and allowed the same to become final. At the hearing, there is no representation for respondent No.2 though the name of the learned counsel is shown in the cause list. Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, strenuously contended that awarding of compensation for one year is inadequate. The learned counsel submitted that respondent No.1 having found that respondent No.2 violated the mandatory provision of Section 25-F of the Act ought to have awarded reasonable compensation. Having carefully considered the material on record, I find myself in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner. Under Section 25-F of the Act, a workman cannot be retrenched unless he is given one month’s notice in writing or paid wages for the period of notice in lieu of giving such notice, and also paid the amount equivalent to 15 days’ average pay for every completed year of continuous service. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, the amounts payable under the above two heads itself will come to wages equivalent to 7 months. The workman admittedly worked for nearly 12 years. Therefore, awarding of one- year wages is wholly inadequate to meet the ends of justice. In my considered view, respondent No.1 ought to have been more considerate and liberal in remedying the injustice done to the workman and his family. Considering the fact that the workman has put in 12 years of service before he was retrenched, I feel that ends of justice would be met if the petitioners are paid last drawn wages equal to three years period instead of one year as directed by respondent No.1. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above by modifying the award passed by respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 shall deposit the wages for three years calculated at Rs.350/- per month within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before respondent No.1. On such deposit being made, the petitioners shall be permitted to withdraw the same unconditionally. --------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:30-12-2008 MNR