IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3797 of 2000 Between: 1 B.Anjaneyulu, S/o.Balappa, R/o.Aganoor Village, Yalal Mandal, R.R.District. 2 B.Kashinath, S/o.Yellappa, R/o.Aganoor Village, Yalal Mandal, R.R.District. 3 Venkat Ramulu, S/o.Sayappa, R/o.H.No.17-39, Kodanoli, Mahabubnagar District. 4 Mohd.Nooruddin, S/o.Mohd.Basheeruddin, R/o.Kyadgira Village, Jeevangi Post, Basheerabad Mandal, R.R.District. 5 Damodar Reddy, S/o.Narayana Reddy, R/o.Iynelly Village, Malkapur Post, Tandur Mandal., R.R.District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Hon'ble Labour Court, Hyderabad-III, Rep. by its Presiding Oficer, Chandravihar Bldg., M.J.Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records from the 1st respondent and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and quash the Award passed by the 1st Respondent in I.D.Nos.198/94, 200/94, 196/94, 199/94 and 192/94, dated:31.12.1998, published on 24.5.1999 in so far as denying back wages and continuity of service to the petitioner as illegal, unjust, contrary to law and perverse; and grant all consequential benefits; and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER : The petitioners herein have worked as Cleaners in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, during the period from 21.08.1990 to 07.09.1993. They have filed this writ petition, challenging the validity of the common award, dated 31st of December 1998, passed in I.D.No.199 of 1994 and batch, by Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, to the extent of denying continuity of service and back wages. 2. The petitioners/workmen have filed applications under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Tribunal, seeking the relief of reinstatement into service with the benefit of continuity of service with full backwages and other attendant benefits. As per the averments made in the application, it was the case of the petitioners before the Tribunal that they have joined the service of the 2nd respondent/Corporation as casual Cleaners on 21.08.1990 and have worked as such continuously up to 07.09.1993. It was their case that though they worked continuously for more than three years, the Corporation has dispensed with their services without following the provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was also stated in those petitions that they were attending the duties of cleaning and sweeping the buses, which job was regular and permanent in nature. The petitioners have further stated in their applications that the claims of similarly placed persons like them, were considered and their services were regularized. 3. The 2nd respondent/management has opposed the relief sought by the petitioners, by filing counter affidavit. Primarily, it was the case of the management that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the Corporation and the petitioners, and due to heavy absenteeism of regular Cleaners and Helpers, they have entrusted the work of cleaning and sweeping the buses by way of contract to one Sri G.Mohan Reddy. It is stated that based on the contract given to Sri G.Mohan Reddy, the petitioners herein have worked for the period from 01.01.1990 to 07.09.1993, and were being paid as per the certification by the Mechanic Foreman. Therefore, it was the case of the management that as much as the petitioners were not appointed by the management directly, there was no obligation on their part to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. The claimants have examined WW-1 to WW-10 on their behalf, and on behalf of the management, the Depot Manager, Tandur, at the relevant time, was examined as MW-1. On behalf of the workmen, Exs.W-1 to W-10 were marked, and on behalf of the management, Ex.M-1 was marked. The Tribunal, having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record, through the common award, dated 31.12.1998, has recorded a finding that the management did not place any material to show that the workmen were not engaged directly by the Corporation, but they were working as Cleaners under a contractor by name Sri G.Mohan Reddy. By further recording a finding that no material is placed by the management to show that the work was entrusted to one of the workers as a contractor in the name of Sri G.Mohan Reddy, it was of the view that the services of petitioners were terminated contrary to the provisions under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. While recording so, the Tribunal has directed the management to reinstate the workmen into service without any backwages, with a further direction to absorb them into regular service as and when clear vacancies arose. 5. Heard Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Corporation. 6. In this writ petition, it is contended by Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, leaned counsel appearing for the petitioners that as they have demonstrated before the Tribunal that they have worked for more than three years directly under the Corporation, the Tribunal has rightly ordered for their reinstatement. It is submitted by the learned counsel that they were appointed directly by the Depot Manager and worked for more than 240 days continuously, and in that view of the matter, there is no reason or justification in not granting continuation of service and back wages to them. 7. On the other hand, it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Corporation that inspite of the fact that the petitioners were engaged only by the Contractor and not by the management, mis-construing the evidence on record, the Tribunal has ordered for reinstatement. It is submitted by him that the wages were being paid only to Sri G.Mohan Reddy, who was a labour contractor, as such, there was no relationship of employer and employee between the Corporation and the petitioners, so as to complain about non-compliance of the provisions under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further submitted that in any event, the petitioners are not entitled for any back wages and continuation of service. 8. Assailing the award of the Tribunal, the respondent/ management has also filed a batch of cases. The said writ petitions are allowed in part, by setting aside the award of the Tribunal to the extent of direction issued by it for absorption of workmen into regular service. At the same time, the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the workmen were directly employed by the management, is upheld by this Court in the said writ petitions. In this writ petition filed by the workmen, the only question, which arises for consideration is whether the workmen are entitled for backwages. In every case where reinstatement is ordered, backwages cannot be awarded automatically. Whether the workman is entitled for backwages or not, is a matter to be considered having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case on hand, since the plea of the management is that the petitioners were employed on piece rate basis for cleaning the buses, this Court is of the view that they are not entitled for any backwages, extending the principle of ‘no work – no pay’. They are neither entitled for continuity of service nor any benefit on account of backwages. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 18th February 2009. ajr