*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25925 of 2007 % 29.08.2008 Between: The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Mahabubabad and another. ..... PETITIONERS AND K. Venkatnarayana S/o. Sathaiah Hanamkonda , Warangal and others. .....RESPONDENTS ! COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: G.P. for Irrigation ^ COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: G.P. for Labour < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25925 of 2007 Between: 1 The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Mahabubabad 2 The Superintending Engineer,Irrigation Circle, Warangal. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1K. Venkatnarayana S/o. Sathaiah Hanamkonda , Warangal. 2K. Buchiramaulu S/o.Narsaiaha Hanamkonda , Warangal. 3M. Srinivasulu S/o.Shivaiah Hanamkonda , Warangal. 4Md. Imam S/o. Kasim Hanamkonda , Warangal. 5A. Ramchandram S/o. Mallaiah Hanamkonda , Warangal. 6K. Raju S/o.Narsaiah Hanamkonda , Warangal. 7A. Ramaswamy S/o. Kanakaiah Hanamkonda , Warangal. 8J. Chandramouli S/o. Ramchandraiah Hanamkonda , Warangal. 9The Chairman-Cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Warangal. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to ID No. 113/2004 dt. 6-6- 2007 of the Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court at Warangal and quash the same and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25925 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the award, dated 06.06.2007, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, in I.D.No.113 of 2004. The respondents were initially appointed as Laskers in the years 1986, 1987 and 1988 on NMR basis in the oﬃce of the 2nd petitioner. Their services were terminated in the year 1992. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents ﬁled O.A.No.925 of 1992, before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The O.A. was allowed and the petitioners were directed to reinstate the respondents. A writ petition ﬁled by the petitioners herein, challenging the orders of the Tribunal, was dismissed. Ultimately, the respondents were reinstated into service. The respondents raised a dispute against the petitioners, in the matter of regularization of their services before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Warangal. The same, ultimately, resulted in a reference being made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 10 (1) (C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) to the Labour Court. The same was taken up as I.D.No.113 of 2004. Through the impugned order, the Labour Court held that the petitioners are not justiﬁed in not regularizing the services of the respondents; and the consequential relief was also granted. The petitioners contend that the very reference made to the Labour Court was untenable, inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is taken away under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. It is also urged that when the respondents have availed the remedy before the Tribunal, there was no basis for them to seek reference. The respondents ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit opposing the plea of the petitioners. It is stated that no objection, as to the maintainability of the I.D., was raised before the Labour Court, and it is not open to the petitioners to raise it before this Court. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. The I.D. before the Labour Court arose out of a reference made by the Government under Section 10(1) (C) of the Act. The question referred to the Labour Court reads as under: “Whether the action of the Superintending Engineer, I.B. Circle, Hanamkonda and Executive Engineer, I.B.Division, Mahabubabad in not regularizing the services of Sri K.Venkatanarayana and 6 others even after completion of more than ﬁve years of service is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?” From this, it is evident that the dispute related to the regularization of the services of the respondents. It is not in dispute that the respondents themselves approached the Administrative Tribunal by ﬁling O.A.No.925 of 1992, when they were retrenched by the petitioners. Their reinstatement into service was on the basis of the order passed therein. In fact, there would have been justiﬁcation for the respondents to approach the Industrial Tribunal under Section 2-A(2) of the Act, when they were retrenched. The reason is that they did not become regular employees of the Government and were being continued only on NMR basis. Once they have been reinstated into service on the strength of the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal, their status does not get diluted, so as to enable them to seek remedy under the Act. The Administrative Tribunals Act excludes the jurisdiction of any other Forum or Court in relation to the service matters of the employees of the Government. That the respondents answer the description of ‘Government Servants’ became clearly evident, when they approached the Tribunal on earlier occasion. A subsidiary relief in the form of regularization of services could not have been claimed under the Act. Though the record does not disclose that the question of jurisdiction was raised by the Labour Court, the fact remains that it is a pure question of law and it can be taken note of at any stage. At any rate, the Labour Court could not have gone into the legality of the reference made to it. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the order under challenge is set aside. It is left open to the respondents to work out their remedies, in accordance with law. The petitioners shall maintain status quo for a period of four (4) weeks, to enable the respondents to approach the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 29.08.2008 Note: L.R.Copy to be marked. (B/o) JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC- OGS/WP{VSMI} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25925 of 2007 Date: 29.08.2008 JSU