IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 26521 of 2001 Between: 1. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2. The Warden, S.G.S.Arts College Hostel, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Chairman-cum-Prasiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 2 Sri O.Narayana Raju, S/o. Narasimha Raju, C/o. V.Venkata Sivaiah, Tirupati, Chittoor 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 form 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.No.329 of 1997, dt. 3.8.2001, published on 25.9.2001, holding the same as illegal, unjust, contrary to law and perverse; and grant all consequential benefits; and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled seeking Writ of Certiorari and quash the award dated 03-08-2001 passed in I.D. No.329 of 1997 by the learned Chairman-cum-Presiding Oﬃcer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur (for short ‘the learned Tribunal’), as illegal, unjust, contrary to law and perverse and to grant all consequential benefits. The writ petitioners are the respondents and the 2nd respondent herein is the workman in the said I.D. The workman ﬁled the said I.D. under Section 2(A)2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1948 against the writ petitioners seeking the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and other benefits. Brief facts of the case of the workman is that he worked as a Sweeper in the S.G.S. Arts College Hostel of Tirupati from May, 1981 and put service up to 31-08-1984. Again he was taken into service with eﬀect from 15-08-1993 and he continued the service without any break till 1996. The claim of the workman was that similar situated employees were getting Rs.475/- per month and subsequently their salaries were increased at Rs.30/- per day or a consolidated pay of Rs.900/- with eﬀect from 1995 but the same beneﬁt was denied to him. Therefore, the workman, along with three others, ﬁled a petition before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act. The claim of the workman was that as he was a party to the said petition, he was disengaged from service from 25-02-1996. Thereafter, he got issued a notice to the writ petitioners and they replied to the same with untenable allegations. In view of the above, the workman ﬁled a petition before the learned Tribunal seeking reinstatement into service. The writ petitioners resisted the claim of the workman stating that the workman was not given any appointment. As and when there is pressure of work, the workman’s service was utilized on daily wages and dispensed with the services immediately. Therefore, the workman has no right to claim the salary on par with the regular employees. The allegation of the workman that he worked for a period of more than 240 days is not correct. Therefore, the workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration: (1)Whether the petitioner worked 240 days in a calendar year as claimed by the petitioner? (2) If so, to what relief the petitioner is entitiled? After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the workman is entitled to reinstatement into service and accordingly the writ petitioners were directed to issue fresh appointment to the workman. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners submits that absolutely there is no evidence on record before the learned Tribunal to come to a conclusion that the workman had worked for a period of more than 240 days in a calendar year and without there being any evidence on record, the learned Tribunal erroneously directed the writ petitioners to issue fresh appointment to the workman, which is illegal and contrary to the facts of the case. Therefore, he submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the workman submits that the workman had worked for a period of 240 days and to substantiate his claim he placed relevant material before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal after considering the same has rightly come to a conclusion that the workman is entitled to reinstatement into service. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the award and there are no merits to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed conﬁrming the award passed by the learned Tribunal. From a perusal of the award, passed by the learned Tribunal, though it referred with regard to some material i.e. notice, stated to have been got issued by the workman, reply to the notice, a representation dated 24-02-1996, stated to have been made by the Hostel Workers Union and also a representation stated to have been made by the inmates of the Hostel, questioning illegal termination of the workman and requested the authorities to take the workman into service, neither it discussed in detail nor marked those documents as exhibits. Therefore, unless and until a speciﬁc ﬁnding is given, considering the suﬃcient material evidence, by the learned Tribunal that the workman had worked for a period of 240 days in a calendar year, it is not just and proper on the part of the learned Tribunal to direct the writ petitioners to issue fresh appointment to the workman. The learned Tribunal ought to have given an opportunity to both the parties to prove their case, by adducing material evidence, in respect of their claims. When there is a dispute with regard to the fact that whether the workman had continuously worked for a period of 240 days in a calendar year it cannot be said that the workman is entitled to fresh appointment. In the instant case the learned Tribunal had not considered the factum of workman being employed by the writ petitioners. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I am of the opinion that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside and in the interest of justice and both the parties the matter is liable to be remitted to the learned Tribunal for fresh adjudication, after giving an opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence to prove their case. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the award dated 03-08-2001 made in I.D. No.329 of 1997 by the learned Tribunal and remitted the matter to the learned Tribunal for fresh adjudication with a direction to dispose of the matter within a period of two months, by giving an opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence to prove their case, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 05-11-2008 LSK