THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2929 OF 2008 DATED 24TH DECEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN K.Venkateswarlu … Petitioner And The Executive Engineer, Division No.II, Telugu Ganga Project, Dargamitta, Nellore. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2929 OF 2008 O R D E R The unsuccessful petitioner I.D.No.141 of 1999 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur, assails the NIL Award dated 02.04.2007 passed therein. It is the case of the petitioner that he entered the service of the State Irrigation Department at Kandaleru Sub-Division No.3 of the Telugu Ganga Project on 28.02.1984 and that he worked continuously upto the date of his termination from service on 01.06.1996. He approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal earlier for regularization of his services, in which attempt he ultimately proved to be unsuccessful. His complaint before the Labour Court was however with regard to his retrenchment from service in violation of the prescribed procedure. The Irrigation Department filed its counter before the Labour Court admitting that the petitioner worked in its service for a particular number of days. It however concentrated upon his entitlement to regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning Department, dated 22.04.1994 and the earlier litigation initiated by the petitioner in this regard. In so far as his termination from service was concerned, it stated that one month wages in lieu of notice was offered to the petitioner. The issue before the Labour Court was as to whether the petitioner was entitled to the protection of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1947’) and if so, whether the Irrigation Department had followed the procedure prescribed thereunder while retrenching his services. Unfortunately, the Labour Court lost sight of this and concentrated only upon the aspect of regularization of the petitioner in service which was not even in issue before it. As was held by the Supreme Court in RATTAN SINGH V/s. UNION OF INDIA[1], even a daily wage employee would be entitled to the protection of the Act of 1947 and the procedure prescribed thereunder, once he satisfies the necessary requirements to seek such protection. Therefore, irrespective of whether the petitioner was a regular employee or whether he was a daily wager, the Labour Court necessarily had to go into his right to seek the protection of the Act of 1947 and in consequence, if the need arose, whether the Irrigation Department had followed the prescribed procedure thereunder. Relevant to note, the petitioner marked the statement of his payment particulars from 29.09.1985 upto 30.03.1996 as Ex.W.2. The Labour Court therefore ought to have verified as to whether the said document established that the petitioner complied with the requirements of Section 25-B(2) of the Act of 1947 in the first instance. If it found in favour of the petitioner on this count, the Labour Court would then be required to go into the aspect of the Irrigation Department following the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. As per the stand put forth by the Irrigation Department in its counter, it is clear that the petitioner was only paid one month wages in lieu of notice and no more. If that be so, violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 is clearly established as he was not paid any retrenchment compensation. These are matters which the Labour Court ought to have examined and adjudicated upon. Instead, it lost track of the points in issue before it and rendered findings to the effect that compliance with Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 was not at all necessary as he did not put in continuous service of 240 days in a particular year, without giving due reasons therefor. There is no discussion forthcoming from the Award under challenge in the context of Ex.W.2. In such circumstances, this Court is left with no option but to set aside the Award under challenge and remit the matter to the Labour Court for consideration afresh in the light of the observations made supra. The Labour Court shall allow due opportunity to the parties to put forth their cases and decide the matter in accordance with law expeditiously and in any event, not later than six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 24TH DECEMBER, 2010 PGS/VGSR [1] (1997) 11 SCC 396