THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No. 1515 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: (Per T. Meena Kumari, J) The Writ Appeal is filed against the Orders of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2953 of 1999, dated 22.8.2007, wherein the learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition No. 2953 of 1999 which was filed by the management being aggrieved by the Award dated 1.5.1998 made in I.D.No. 13 of 1996 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad. The case of the appellant bank is that one S. Sathaiah, alleged to have been worked as Temporary Mazdoor in the State Bank of India, Shankarampet Branch Medak District from 26.12.1980 to 28.4.1982. As his services were terminated, the union raised conciliation proceedings and on failure of the same, the matter was referred to the Government. However, the Government refused to refer the matter to Industrial Tribunal by order dated 21.9.1987. Aggrieved by the same, the Union filed a Writ Petition No. 6984 of 1988 which was allowed on 15.11.1994 by the High Court with a direction to the Government to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. On referring the matter, the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad took the same on file as I.D.No. 13 of 1996 and the same was allowed by the tribunal with a direction that the petitioner Sathaiah shall be reinstated as daily casual messenger in any Branch in Andhra Pradesh and provide him as and when there is work and also held that the petitioner is entitled to continuity of service as his services were terminated illegally. Aggrieved by the same, the Union has filed Writ Petition No. 34188 of 1999 for back wages of the petitioner and the management filed Writ Petition No. 2953 of 1999. Even though the contention is raised by the management before the learned Single Judge that the petitioner did not work for 240 days, the learned Single Judge has dismissed both the Writ Petitions filed by the management as well as the Union. Questioning the same, the present Writ Appeal has been filed by the management. Heard both sides. Before the tribunal, on behalf of the Union, W.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.W1 to W3 were marked. On behalf of the Management, M.W.1 was examined and Exs.M-1 to M-8 were marked. The tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence has found that the petitioner worked for more than 240 days and termination is without any notice or compensation and the same is in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act and directed the management to reinstate the petitioner Sathaiah as daily casual messenger in any Branch in Andhra Pradesh and provide him as and when there is work and also held that the petitioner is entitled to continuity of service as his services were terminated illegally. The learned counsel for the appellant bank submits that there was no evidence to show that the workman had put in more than 240 days of service preceding the date of his termination on 28.4.1982. The learned Counsel has contended that the evidence available on record before the tribunal goes to show that the signatures of the workman was not supported by any oral or documentary evidence and the Branch Manager was summoned by the workmen himself and he has not categorically denied the signatures of workman in the records of the bank. From the foregoing discussions, we find that the management failed to disprove that the signatures made by the petitioner-workman in the Exs.W1 and W2 were not of the petitioner-workmen. In the absence of any oral or documentary evidence to disprove the signatures that it is not belong to workmen, we are of the opinion that the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge is correct and the Writ Appeal is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. _______________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J __________________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 6.2.2009 CHV