HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 16917 OF 2000 Between: Bommali Dharma Rao S/o Narayana ..... PETITIONER AND The District B. C. Welfare Officer, Srikakulam and two others .....RESPONDENTS ORAL ORDER: The Workman in I.D.No. 134 of 1997 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam is before this Court aggrieved by the award dated 21.2.2000 passed therein, to the extent it denied him backwages and consequential benefits. The petitioner worked as a Helper in the Government Boys Hostel at Boddapadu from 1.9.1991 till 25.8.1992. His services were terminated on the said date without following the due procedure. He raised the subject Industrial Dispute challenging his termination from service. The Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, on examination of the material placed on record concluded that the petitioner worked for more than the requisite period of 240 days in the relevant year; that he was consequently entitled to the protection afforded by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and accordingly directed his reinstatement in service. However, taking note of the delay on his part in raising the dispute, the Labour Court held him disentitled to backwages. It is stated by the counsel that Writ Petition No. 14873 of 2000 filed by the respondents against the direction of the Labour Court with regard to the reinstatement of the petitioner has been dismissed by this Court and consequently, the petitioner was reinstated and is presently working. In so far as the relief of backwages is concerned, the settled legal position as obtaining presently is that award of the same is not automatic upon a direction of reinstatement (J.K. SYNTHETICS LTD VS. K.P. AGRAWAL[1]). Several factors would have to be taken into consideration while dealing with the workman’s entitlement to claim backwages. In the present case, the petitioner worked in the respondent-Organisation for a short period between September 1991 and August 1992. He raised the subject Industrial Dispute only in the year 1997. Though it is stated by Ms. Kalpana representing Mr V. Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner, that he was making representations to the authorities, there is no convincing evidence of the same. Further, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner, having worked for a brief period, is now seeking payment of five years wages without having put in any work. Considering the facts of the case in their totality, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any backwages. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J DATE: 29.08.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies. [1] (2007) 2 SCC 433