IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.22519 & 22585 of 1999 WRIT PETITION No.22519 of 1999 Between: 1 Admiral Superintendent, Naval Dock-yard, representing Naval Dock- Yard Defence Employees' Dry Canteen, Visakhapatnam. 2 Deputy General Manager (personnel) Naval Dock-yard, Representing Naval Dock-Yard Defence Employees' Dry Canteen, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Sri Y. Jagannadham S/o. Y. Kasipatrudu D.No. 21-52/3, N.A.D. Post, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT 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 issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records in I.T.I.D.no. 24/97 (C) on the file of the court of Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, and quash the Award Dated. 21.5.1998 and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.A.V.S.BHAGAVAN Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SAM} WRIT PETITION No.22585 of 1999 Between: 1 Admiral Superintendent ,Naval Dock- Yard, Naval Dock Yard Defence Employees, Dry Cateen, Visakhapatnam 2 Deputy General Manger (Personnel) Naval Dock-Yard, Naval Dock-yard Defence Employees Dry Canteen, Visakhapatnam ..... PETITIONER(S) AND P.C.Blake son of William Blake D.No. 31-71, 348, Trinadhapuram , Backside of Malkapuram, Port Quarters, Visakhapatnam -14 .....RESPONDENT 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 issue a writ more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari Calling for the records in I.T.I.D.No.22/97 (C) on the file of the court of Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour court, Visakhapatnam, and quash the award dated. 21/05/1998 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.A.V.S.BHAGAVAN The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{GR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.22519 & 22585 of 1999 COMMON ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) 1. These two Writ Petitions are filed by the Admiral Superintendent, Naval Dockyard, represented by Naval Dockyard Defence Employees Dry Canteen, Visakhapatnam and the Deputy General Manager (Personal), Naval Dockyard, represented by Naval Dockyard Defence Employees’ Dry Canteen, Visakhapatnam, aggrieved by the Awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in ITID No. ( C )24/1997 and ITID No. 22/1997 ( C ) dated 21.5.1998. The respondents in both the Writ Petitions are the workmen who filed the said IDs before the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam under Section 2 A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is stated that the respondent in WP No.22519/1999 served in the petitioner management as a Helper in Naval Dockyard Defence Employees Dry Canteen (CSD-1) being run by the Writ Petitioners on a monthly salary and the said workman had been continuously working without any break of service at any time, but suddenly he was retrenched from service from 31.5.1997 without showing any reasons. The said action of the writ petitioner in retrenching the workman was questioned in the said ITID No. (C) 24/1997. 2. In so far as the respondent in WP No.22585/1999 is concerned, it is stated that he served with the petitioner/management as Helper from 1988 to 31.5.1997 and he was retrenched from service without giving any notice and therefore filed ID 22/1997 ( C ). In both the said IDs the petitioners Management remained ex parte all through. The workman examined himself as WW1 and got marked Exhibits-W 1 to W 3. The Tribunal held that the unrebutted testimony of the workman coupled with the few exhibits, unmistakably shows that the workman had served with the management for more than 240 days, and that he was removed from service without adhering to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The very name of the management suggests that it is an industry as afterall the activity carried on there cannot be anything other than that of a dry canteen. In other words it looks like a hotel industry. Thus, the evidence discloses that the workmen are entitled to the protection of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, which obviously was denied to him. Accordingly the retrenchment of the workman was held to be illegal and invalid. Accordingly both the Industrial Disputes were disposed of, directing the Management to reinstate the said workman with full back wages and continuity of service and also to pay the costs. 3. Aggrieved by the same, these two Writ Petitions have been filed by the Management and this Court while admitting the Writ Petitions granted interim suspension of operation of Awards passed in both the Industrial Disputes subject to compliance of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Management is paying wages to the workman continuously without any default. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/management further submitted that the OAs filed by the workmen filed in OA No.1142/1995 and OA 1226/1995 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench questioning the retrenchment of their services was dismissed on the ground that the workmen are not the Central Government employees and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the said applications. 5. We have perused the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal never stated that they are not the workmen but only stated that they are not the Central Government employees. It is not the case of the workmen that they are the Central Government employees, but they are only workmen. Therefore, the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam rightly entertained the said dispute and held that they are workmen and they were retrenched from service without following the due procedure as prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Writ Petitioner/Management never filed any counter before the Industrial Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. They remained ex parte. The reasons for remaining ex parte were also not explained in these writ petitions. Even in these Writ petitions, it is not the case of the management that the respondents are not the workmen. 6. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. These Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of, keeping it open for the Writ Petitioner/Management to follow the due procedure as prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act and take appropriate steps, if it is so advised. No order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J ______________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY,J Date:08.06.2009. gk/dsr. THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NOS :22519 OF 1999 & 22585 OF 1999 Date:08-06-2009 Gk