THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NOS.5774, 5775, 5776 AND 5777 OF 2001 COMMON ORDER As the issue involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same and they are filed challenging the common award dated 26.2.1999 passed by the Labour Court, III, Hyderabad in I.D.Nos.32 to 35 of 1996, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The respondent no.2 in all the writ petitions are the workmen working under the writ petitioner - Nalgonda Food Corporation of India and State Ware Hammalies Labour Contractor Co-operative Society Limited and their services were being utilized by the Food Corporation of India. The case of the workmen is that they are all working since nine years. Their grievance is that the petitioner – society in violation of the provisions under Section 25-F of the Act, orally terminated their services from December, 1995 and hence they raised I.D.Nos.32 to 35 of 1996 invoking the provisions under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking reinstatement along with back wages and continuity of service. 3. While denying the averments of the workmen that their services were orally terminated, the writ petitioner stated inter alia that the workmen voluntarily stopped from attending work and without attending the work, they approached the court with false allegations and that it has addressed individual letters to the workmen and in spite of the same, they kept quite. Hence, the I.Ds. were sought to be dismissed. 4. By the impugned common award, the Tribunal while setting aside the oral termination of the workmen, directed their reinstatement on daily wage basis with 12 per cent back wages and also granted continuity of service. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 5. This court while admitting the writ petitions on 30.3.2001 passed the interim orders. Since all the interim orders are one and the same, the interim order in W.P.M.P.No.7364/2001 in W.P.No.5774/2001, is extracted as under, for convenience: “The petitioner assails the common award dated 26.2.1999 in I.D.Nos.31 to 35 of 1996 on the file of Labour Court III, Hyderabad as also E.P.4 of 2000 filed against the common award in the above I.Ds. By the award, the party respondents herein who were the workmen have been directed to be reinstated with the petitioner with 12 per cent back wages and continuity of service. It is the case of the petitioner that after the oral order of termination in December, 1995, the party respondents herein have been continued in service and were continuing as on the date of the award and therefore there is no question or occasion to reinstate them into service. On account of the ambiguity consequent on the award, the party respondents are abstaining from working and have filed E.P. claiming reinstatement and that since they continued in service as from the date of the award, the order in the award to the extent directing reinstatement is erroneous and provides an opportunity to harass the petitioner. In the circumstances stated, pending further orders, there shall be stay of all further proceedings in E.P.4 of 2000 on the file of the first respondent.” 6. Though notices were served, no counter affidavit is filed by the respondent – workmen. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner – society contended that the workmen were continued in service and they were also paid 12 per cent back wages as ordered in the award. Since, they are being continued even before passing of the award, the direction in the impugned award to the extent of granting reinstatement, is not necessary and taking advantage of this ambiguity, the workmen have stopped the work and filed execution petitions seeking reinstatement. He submitted that the fact of continuing the petitioners even before passing of the award, is also brought on record, but oblivious of the same, the Labour Court granted reinstatement and the same is required to be set aside, by modifying the impugned awards. 8. From the material on record, the admitted facts are that the petitioner is the society and the workmen are its members and the Food Corporation of India is taking the service of the workmen, through the writ petitioner – Society. The case of the Society is that workmen were working since 1976 and that they voluntarily stopped from attending to work and they were neither terminated, nor retrenched and that it addressed a letter dated 16.7.1996 to the workmen to join duty. To this effect, the writ petitioner lead the evidence of M.W.1. On behalf of the petitioner – Society, the Assistant Manager of the Food Corporation of India, was also examined as M.W.2 and he deposed that the 1st respondent is a registered license holder and the workers of the society will be appointed by the society itself; that after receiving the notice from the court about the case, he contacted the society and it was informed that the workmen absconded from duties and that their services were not terminated; that subsequently, he told the society to inform the workmen to come and join duty on 7.3.1998; that the society asked them to join duty on 17.3.1998 and; that the workmen are now working. The evidence of on record discloses that the workmen were working as on the date of recording evidence of management witnesses. This fact was also noticed by the Tribunal, but it deprecated the attitude of the writ petitioner is not taking action when the workmen absconded from duty. 9. Therefore, the fact remains that the workmen were working even before the date of passing of the award on 26.2.1999. When the workmen were already continuing in service, the question of granting reinstatement does not arise and as per the submissions of the counsel for the writ petitioners, the workmen were paid the 12 per cent back wages and the workmen also did not file any writ petition aggrieved by the impugned award. Hence, in these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the order of reinstatement granted by the Labour Court needs to be set aside, since the workmen were already in service. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned award to the extent of granting reinstatement, is set aside, since the workmen were already working and are in service as on the date of passing of the award, and the rest of the award with regard to back wages and continuity of service is confirmed. 11. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. AVS -------------------------- - 25—11—2010