THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 1464 & 1561 OF 2006 Dt: 13th March 2008 Between: Y.Yesupadam & others …Petitioners and The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur & another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 1464 & 1561 OF 2006 COMMON ORDER: In these two writ petitions, similar question of fact and law arose. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. W.P.No.1464 of 2006 is filed by the legal representatives of one Mr.J.Yesupadam and W.P.No.1561 of 2006 is filed by D.Srinivasa Rao. Yesupadam and Srinivasa Rao are employed in the Andhra Christian College, Guntur, the 2nd respondent, in different capacities. They were retrenched by the 2nd respondent through a notice, dated 28.2.1999, by offering the retrenchment compensation. They approached the Labour Court, Guntur, the 1st respondent, by filing I.D. Nos.91 and 90 of 1999, respectively. Through separate awards, dated 2.7.2005, the Labour Court dismissed the IDs. Hence, these two writ petitions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Labour, and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. The very fact that the 2nd respondent issued notice of retrenchment to the employees, discloses that the relationship of employer and employee was not disputed. The controversy was about the compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short “the Act”). Section 25-F of the Act insists that apart from serving notice of one month, or payment of wages for that period, in lieu of notice, the employer must also pay at the time of retrenchment, the compensation, equivalent to 15 days average pay complete for each year of service. Though there is a compliance with Section 25-F (a) of the Act, in the instant case, the other clause viz, 25-F (b), was not at all complied with. The workmen pleaded that they were in service of the 2nd respondent, from 1988 or there about. In fact, in I.D.No.91 of 1999, the workman filed Ex.W-5, the Provident Fund slip for the year 1988-89. That was required to be taken into account, in the matter of fixation of the duration of service, to determine the compensation payable under Section 25-F (b) of the Act. The findings recorded by the Labour Court, in this regard, are perverse and contrary to evidence on record. On this short ground, the writ petitions are allowed, and the awards in question are set aside. The matters are remanded to the Labour Court, for fresh determination and disposal. The Labour Court shall specifically deal with the question of compliance with Section 25- F (b) of the Act, in the context of determining the validity of order of retrenchment and granting the relief. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 13th March 2008 PAN