THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.4392 of 1994 Date: 07th July, 2011 Between: B.Narsing Rao …Petitioner A n d 1. Singareni Collieries Company Limited rep. by its Managing Director, Maher Manzil, Red Hills, Hyderabad & Anr. …Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.4392 of 1994 ORDER: Petitioner-B.Narsing Rao was appointed as a General Mazdoor in Singareni Collieries Company Limited on 11.10.1982. His services came to be terminated on 28.05.1983. He questioned the termination order by filing a petition under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short, ‘the I.D. Act’) before the Labour Court-I, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. He pleaded in the petition that he worked for more than 90 days in a year and therefore, he was entitled to one month’s notice before termination as provided under Sec.25-F of the I.D. Act. He also pleaded in the petition that the respondents engaged more than 300 workers without taking him into re- employment and therefore, the action of the respondents was in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D.Act. He questioned the action of the respondents in terminating his services on the ground that the termination is in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act and of their not re-employing him is in violation of Section 25-H of the I.D. Act. The Labour Court took the petition on file as I.D.No.504 of 1988. The respondents resisted the petition of the workman on the ground that Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act is not applicable to the workmen employed in industrial undertaking of the Central Government. The respondents also took the plea before the Labour Court that the Labour Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The Labour Court framed the following preliminary issues for consideration: “1) Whether the petition filed under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act is maintainable? 2) Whether this Court has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition?” Neither party adduced any oral or documentary evidence. The learned Judge of the Labour Court, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, held that the Labour Court has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. With regard to the maintainability of the petition, the learned Judge of the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the workmen engaged in an industry run or under the authority of the Central Government is not entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act and thereby proceeded to dismiss the petition, by order dated 21.12.1993. Hence, this Writ Petition. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in U.Chinnappa v Cotton Corporation of India[1], wherein it has been held that the workman engaged in an industry run by or under the authority of the Central Government is entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The relevant portion of the cited judgment reads as hereunder: “The next aspect is whether the operation of sub-section (2) of Section 2-A shall be confined only to the workmen employed in the industrial undertakings of the State Government as interpreted by the Labour Court or it would govern all workmen irrespective of whether he is a workman engaged in an industry rim by or under the authority of the Central Government or the State Government or any other industry located in the State. We find no warrant to restrict the scope and amplitude of the wide phraseology “any workman” employed in sub-section (2) of Section 2-A of the Act so as to hamper the right of any workman who was discharged, dismissed, retrenched or terminated from employment or service. We do not think that any incongruity or anomaly would result by applying sub- section (2) to the cases of discharge, dismissal termination or retrenchment of the workmen employed in an industry run by or under the authority of the Central Government. On the other hand, the purpose of the Act will be better served in placing an interpretation that it would apply to all categories of workmen. That is why the subject of Labour and Industrial disputes is assigned to the Concurrent List. Within the State, there need not be diversity of approach in the matter of providing remedies to the aggrieved workmen. There is no good reason why the ambit and operation of Section 2-A should be restricted only to the workmen other than those employed in an industry run by or under the authority of the Central Government”. In view of the Division Bench judgment, the order passed by the Labour Court ordered impugned in the writ petition cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the award passed by the Labour Court is set aside, remanding the matter back to the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad for disposal according to law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.7th July, 2011 PNV [1] 1998-ALD-5-16