THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 1413 of 2003 O R D E R: This writ petition is directed against an Award made in I.D. No. 188 of 2001 dated 18.3.2002 on the file of Central Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad whereunder the application filed under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act by the respondent-workman was ultimately disposed of as under: “It may be seen that there is no document to show that the petitioner ever worked. Further taking for granted that he did work for four years from 1976 to 1980 his silence for 19 years is too long a delay to be condoned. Further in a case reported in 2001 LLJ 569 their Lordships said to condone delay of 7 years. Condoning a delay of 19 years would amount to jeopardizing entire things that happened in the 19 years. But one thing is certain that either the petitioner worked directly under the F.C.I. or under some contractor. Therefore, in the result the petitioner is not entitled for any relief except that if the respondent namely, Assistant Manager, F.C.I. Miryalguda Depot engages any casual labour in future preference to be given to the petitioner taking his seniority as on 15.10.1976. A word of caution that this shall apply for only engaging fresh casual labours from today and there shall be no retrenchment in view of this award. Award passed accordingly. Transmit.” The only grievance of the petitioner-management is that having given a finding that the petitioner never worked anywhere, the finding “one thing is certain that he either worked directly under the F.C.I. or under some contractor, therefore, he is entitled to be engaged as a casual labour in future and preference to be given to the petitioner taking his seniority as on 15.10.1976” is unwarranted by the labour Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case. I am in full agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-management that while passing such Award, the question of taking seniority of the respondent- workman as on 15.10.1976 for the purpose of prefential treatment to be given for appointment as a casual labour in future does not arise. In fact, when a similar question arose before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1812 of 2003 and batch, by judgment dated 20.7.2010, it was held as under: “As far as the seniority is concerned, no doubt as long as the respondents are not in service, the question of claiming any seniority, more so when the earlier appointment stated to be not directly under the Corporation, they do not come for any consideration. Therefore, we make it clear that the question of giving any seniority from January, 1977 does not find support either in law or in merits. Accordingly, the direction to that effect stands set aside”. In view of the above, that portion of the Award dated 18.3.2002 passed by the Labour Court at para 10 that “in future preference be given to the petitioner taking his seniority as on 15.10.1976” is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. However, the rest of the Award dated 18.3.2002 is confirmed. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 10-2-2011. MVB.