IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.6637 of 1999 Between: S.Nagaiah S/o Venkaiah Jujjularaopet Village, Kusumanchi Mandal, Khamman Distirct. Andhra Pradesh. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Manager of APSCC Ltd., Khammam, represented by Successor in interest i.e., E.E.(NSP), O & M Division, Tekulapally, Khammam, Khamman District. 2 The Chief Secretary to Government Secretariat, A.P., Hyderabad. (R2 is deleted as per Court Order dt. 14/03/2000 in WPMP.No.170/2000) 3 The Secretary to Government , Irrigation Project Wing, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 4 The Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Waragal District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to pay the back wages and to give attendant benefits pay to the petitioner from the date of retrenchment till the date of appointment, while modifying the Award passed by the Industrial Dispute No.43/94, dt. 30/07/1998 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, Andhra Pradesh, after calling for the records and to pass such other orders that this Hon'ble Court may deem just. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.PRATTIPATI VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : W.P.No.6637 of 1999 ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed being aggrieved by an Award dated 30-7-1998 made in I.D.No.43 of 1994 on the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal insofar as denying back wages and attendant benefits to the petitioner while ordering reinstatement with continuity of service is concerned. Petitioner is the workman. Respondentis the Management. It appears, petitioner was appointed as daily wage Pump Operator with effect from 14-2-1977 in the A.P. State Construction Corporation Limited, NSLC Unit, Khammam. It was his case that his services were terminated abruptly without any notice on 6-8-1979, though his juniors were retained. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suffice to notice that when the services of the petitioner were terminated on 6-8-1979, he raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal in I.D.No.43 of 1994, in the year 1994 stating that his services were terminated abruptly and contrary to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Respondent-Management filed a detailed counter before the Labour Court denying the allegations made by the petitioner and stating that the retrenchment of the petitioner was for valid reasons and as per the provisions of Section 25-F and G of the Act. No junior to the petitioner has been continued in service in the Unit. Before the Labour Court, to substantiate his case, petitioner got examined himself as W.W.1, however, no documents were marked on his behalf. On behalf of the respondent-Management, M.W.1 was examined and Exs.M1 and M2 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the Labour Court found that the petitioner worked as Pump Operator from 14-2-1977 in the Construction Corporation and he had put in more than 240 days of continuous service and as such, his services could not have been terminated without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. The Labour Court further recorded that absolutely there is no evidence to show that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were followed before terminating the services of the petitioner. Under those circumstances, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that there was a gross violation of principles of natural justice and the termination of the services of the petitioner was contrary to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. However, in view of the fact that the termination was in 1979 and the petitioner did not raise his little finger and had approached the Labour Court only in the year 1994 directed reinstatement as a ‘fresh recruit’ pump operator and to consider his seniority as per the seniority list of the year 1979, if any regular appointments are made after retrenchment of the petitioner. Further, it was made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for any back wages and other attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed seeking the relief of back wages and attendant benefits. Heard both sides and perused the entire material made available on record. The facts, as noticed above, would not inspire the confidence of the Court to interfere with the Award passed by the Labour Court. In fact, a stale matter was taken up by the Labour Court and it was answered in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated into service. In a case of this nature, when the dispute was raised after more than 14 years, there was no option for the Labour Court except to deny back wages etc. I am of the considered opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error in passing the Award, particularly denying back wages and attendant benefits, calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 19-4-2008 prk