THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.5511 to 5515 and 5517 to 5521 of 2006 COMMON ORDER: Since all these writ petitions are filed against the common award, dated 18.07.2005 passed by the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur (for short ‘the Tribunal’), they heard together and are taken up for disposal. The first respondent/workmen filed applications under Section 2- A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Tribunal against the petitioner municipality questioning retrenchment of their services from 11.07.1996, while seeking a direction for their reinstatement into service. It is the case of the workmen that some of them were appointed in June, 1985 and some in December, 1990 as NMR workers in the petitioner municipality and since then, they worked continuously and completed more than five years of service. It is their grievance that though they worked in the petitioner municipality for several years, their services were retrenched illegally on 11.07.1996. It is their case that such retrenchment of their services orally without issuing any notice and paying retrenchment compensation, is in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. It is also their case that several persons, who are juniors in the category of NMR workers, are being continued and that the petitioner municipality has not followed the principle ‘last come first go’, and retrenched their services assuming that their services are not required. In view of such retrenchment, they remained unemployed, as such, they sought for reinstatement into service with back wages. On behalf of the petitioner municipality, counter-affidavits were filed disputing the appointment of some of the workmen in June, 1985 and some in December, 1990. It is the case of the petitioner municipality that the workmen had not worked continuously for more than 240 days in any year and they had merely worked only for a period of 89 days during October, 1991 to December, 1991. The workmen were examined as WWs.1 to 9 and documentary evidence was marked as Exs.W.1 to W.34. On behalf of the petitioner municipality, the Commissioner was examined as M.W.1 and Sanitary Inspector as M.W.2 and documentary evidence was marked as Exs.M.1 to M.6. The Tribunal by recording a finding that the evidence filed on behalf of the workmen would show that they have worked for more than 240 days in a year and there is no proof of serving retrenchment notices or paying compensation by the municipality, allowed in part the applications and ordered for their reinstatement into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits but without back wages. Aggrieved by such common award, these writ petitions are filed by the municipality. It is contended by Sri Palle Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner that the workmen had not worked continuously as NMR workers for more than 240 days in a year, as such, they were not entitled to any compensation and retrenchment notice. It is submitted that they worked for some times as NMR workers but they themselves abandoned the services from June, 1996, as such, they are not entitled for reinstatement. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel for the workmen that there is evidence on record to prove that the workmen continuously worked from the date of their appointment and completed more than five years of service. It is specifically submitted that several persons, who entered into service as NMRs subsequent to the workmen herein are being continued and some of them were granted the benefit of regularization of service and in spite of the same, without any just reason and without complying the statutory requirements, the services of the workmen herein were discontinued orally from 11.07.1996. It is also submitted that in view of oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act by the municipality and accordingly, ordered for reinstatement of the workmen into service as such there are no grounds to interfere with the common award passed by the Tribunal. I have perused the common award of the Tribunal. It is to be noticed that earlier, after claim petitions were filed, as the petitioner municipality did not contest the proceedings, there was an ex parte award. As against the said ex parte award, they approached this Court by way of writ petitions, which in turn, were allowed and remanded for fresh consideration. Consequent to the same, the present impugned common award was passed. The petitioner municipality never disputed that the workmen worked in it as NMRs from the date of entry into service. It’s case is that the workmen themselves abandoned the services from 11.07.1996. The certified copies of affidavits filed by the municipality in the writ petitions filed before this Court earlier, were marked as Exs.W.24 to W.33 on behalf of the workmen. The Tribunal while appreciating the evidence on record noticed that there is a change in the defence of municipality from time to time. The crucial document, which was relied on by the Tribunal, is Ex.W.4, which is a service certificate issued by the appointing authority on 29.03.1992. In the very service certificate, it is clearly mentioned that the workmen worked for a total number of 240 days during the period from August, 1991 to March, 1992. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal has correctly arrived at the conclusion that though the workmen were in continuous service in terms of Section 25-B of the Act, their services were orally terminated by the petitioner municipality without complying the statutory requirements under Section 25-F of the Act. Further, in view of oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the workmen, the Tribunal by recording a finding that there is a statutory violation on behalf of the petitioner municipality in retrenching the services of the workmen, ordered for reinstatement of the workmen with continuity of service but without back wages. In view of the just findings recorded by the Tribunal appreciating the evidence on record, I do not find any illegality to interfere with the impugned common award. The writ petitions are accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 2nd JULY, 2010. kvni