IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN :PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.24799 of 2001 Between: S. Govinda Rao ..... PETITIONER AND The Management of A.P.P. Mills Limited, Mallayyapeta and another ..... RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: ORDER: The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ or direction, more particularly in the nature of writ of certiorari after calling for the records on the file of the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in I.D.No.133 of 1998 and to quash the award passed by the second respondent in order to determine the real question effecting the rights of the petitioner as agitated in the above said I.D. 2. According to the petitioner, he filed I.D.No.133 of 1998 on the file of the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, against the first respondent for declaration that his non-employment as workman by the first respondent is illegal, un-lawful and the management of the first respondent resorted to unfair labour practices and to restore him as a regular workman on par with other workmen who were juniors to him and regularly absorbed him in the establishment. 3. The writ petitioner was first appointed as workman in the first respondent’s establishment as a Forest Mukaddam, a seasonal employment. He was first appointed on 26-10-1978 but the management has taken the date of appointment as 05-11-1978 and he continued to work upto 30-06-1983. As the writ petitioner has took part in the strike conducted by the union for betterment of service conditions and enhancement of salary he was retrenched by the management of the first respondent without following the procedure laid down under the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter he has filed I.D.No.70 of 1986 before the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, and the said industrial dispute was allowed declaring that the retrenchment was illegal and directed the first respondent to reinstate him with back wages. As the first respondent has failed to comply with the said order he filed enforcement of the said order before the competent authority i.e., the Special Judicial II Class Magistrate Court, Rajahmundry. The said Magistrate imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) on the management and directed immediate payment of arrears and back wages. The management has settled the matter out side the Court with him and filed an appeal before the District Court questioning imposition of fine and the said appeal was allowed. Thereafter he was again absorbed as Mukaddam on 24- 09-1988 and worked up to 30-06-1989. The management discharged him after expiry of season along with some other workman by their order dated 17-06-1989. Subsequently, other terminated workers were re-employed by the management seasonally. He made a representation with the first respondent for his re-employment and absorption on regular basis. At this stage the management has resorted to unfair labour practices, misguided him and fraudulently induced him to submit a resignation on 01-01-1990 with a promise to absorb him in a regular vacancy as and when it arose in the immediate future. But the management manipulated his date of resignation and fabricated it as 01-07-1989 instead of 01-01-1990. However, he was appointed as a watchman on 16-01- 1990 with reduced wages of Rs.716/- per month. As on the date as claimed by the management i.e., on 01-07-1989 he was not on the roles of the establishment of the first respondent. Hence, the question of submitting his resignation on 01-07-1989 does not arise. The management has absorbed 25 workman on regularizing their services from 01-05-1992 but he was not absorbed on par with his juniors. Even though he worked as a temporary watchman with reduced wages but he continued his claim for regular absorption on par with other 25 Mukaddams. He raised dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rajahmundry, for conciliation. The conciliation was failed and he appealed the matter before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour along with other 25 workmen’s case for their regularization. The management entered into an agreement with union and absorbed the other 25 workmen leaving him alone. The other 25 workmen were also subsequently promoted. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour directed the management of the first respondent to consider his case also for regular absorption on par with other workmen. But the management did not appoint him regularly. He worked as watchman upto 30-04-1997. He was not provided with regular employment beyond 30-04-1997. The non-employment by the management is illegal, un-lawful and it was a victimization by the management. Thereafter he raised industrial dispute I.D.No.133 of 1998 on the file of the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. The Labour Court has decided the dispute by award on 31-07-2000 by dismissing his claim petition erroneously. Aggrieved by the said award, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Now the point for consideration is whether the award passed in I.D.No.133 of 1998 by the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, is liable to be set aside and direct the writ petitioner to be absorbed on regular basis. 5. POINT: The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has pleaded that the management has acted illegally and victimized the present petitioner as he has taken part in the strike and questioned his retrenchment by filing the dispute in Labour Court. The management also fraudulently obtain a resignation letter and appointed him as a temporary watchmen and did not regularize his services even though other Forest Mukaddams who worked along with him were regularized. 6. The respondents counsel on the other hand has pleaded that the Labour Court has rightly observed that the present writ petitioner has submitted the resignation on the ground that he could not able to work in the forest area and sought for a lighter employment as such the management has provided him the post of temporary watchmen and he worked for six years without any protest and the appointment of temporary watchman is basing on the need and when the need is seized his services were discontinued and thus there is no victimization of the writ petitioner by the respondent-management and he is not entitled for any relief. 7. Admittedly, the writ petitioner was worked as a Forest Mukaddam in the respondent management and the said Forest Mukaddam is a seasonal employment and he was employed during the season. When the services of the writ petitioner was discontinued by the management he raised an industrial dispute I.D.No.70 of 1986 before the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, and the said Court has passed an award directing the management to re-instate him with back wages. Thereafter the writ petitioner has filed enforcement petition, as respondent management has not complied the award passed by the Labour Court. Thereafter award was complied and he was re-instated and paid the back wages. 8. According to the writ petitioner, the management has obtained a resignation letter from him on 01-01-1990 promising to provide appointment in regular vacancy as and when it arose immediately. The writ petitioner has questioned the said resignation letter stating that it is obtained by the respondent- management under a false promise. As per Ex.M-15 the writ petitioner has made a representation for cancellation of resignation letter and the management has considered the same and appointed the writ petitioner as a temporary watchman with reduced wages and he continued in the said post upto 30-04-1997. Thereafter the management did not give employment to him. Questioning the said non-employment of the writ petitioner by the respondent management he raised a dispute before the Labour Court and the Labour Court has rejected his claim. The said finding of the Labour Court is being questioned in the present writ petition. 9. As per the findings of the Labour Court the writ petitioner has submitted resignation letter Ex.M-14 on 01-07-1989 and settled all his claims with the management and the writ petitioner has submitted an application for providing a lighter employment and the management has appointed him as a Watchman in Diwancheruvu on 16-01-1990 for a period of six months and the appointment was extended for every six months and he continued till 13-04-1997. The Labour Court also considered the withdrawal of the resignation letter by the petitioner-workman and held that as he was accepted a fresh employment with effect from 16-01-1990 the question of withdrawal of his earlier resignation does not arise and as the resignation was accepted the petitioner could not made an application for fresh appointment. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner as a temporary Watchman is a fresh appointment and the writ petitioner worked in as a temporary Watchman from 1990 to 1997 voluntarily. Since the writ petitioner has resigned for the post of Forest Mukaddam the question of regularizing him in the said post does not arise. As the temporary appointment of Watchman is based under reduced wages and management has discontinued his employment, as such, it cannot be said to be victimization of the workman by the respondent-management. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner could not point out how the discontinuation of the petitioner by the respondent management amount to victimization and how the findings of the Labour Court are liable to be set aside. The Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, has given cogent reason for disallowing the claim of the writ petitioner and this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the said finding given by the Labour Court. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. 10. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J January 21, 2011 PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.24799 of 2001 January 21, 2011