THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.1231 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the award made in I.D.No.31 of 2002 dated 11.6.2004 on the file of the learned Chairman and Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, whereunder the application filed under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking reinstatement of workman with back wages etc., was allowed as prayed for. Petitioners are management and second respondent is workman. The second respondent filed Claim Petition under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act stating that he was appointed as Casual Sweeper with effect from 1.8.1991 to work in TTD Kalyanamandapam situated at Balaji Cheruvu, Kakinada (second petitioner). While that being so, the services of the second respondent were terminated with effect from 13.10.1996 without any reason. The petitioner-management filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by second respondent stating that the petitioner was engaged on purely adhoc and daily wage basis just to complete the temporary workload and since there was no workload in the Kalyanamandapam for certain period, the services of the petitioner were disengaged. However, thereafter the Kalyanamadnapam work was entrusted to Contractor. Moreover, the activities of the management do not come within the meaning of Industry to attract the provisions of I.D. Act. On the basis of above pleadings, the Labour Court framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the respondents 1 and 2 come under the definition of Industry in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. Whether the petitioner is a workman as defined in Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and whether the dispute raised by the petitioner is an industrial dispute? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement? 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for back wages? 5. To what relief, the petitioner is entitled to? On behalf of workman, she herself was examined as W.W.1 and no documents were marked. On behalf of management M.W.1 was examined and Exs.M1 and M2 were marked. On detailed consideration of the entire material available on record, the Tribunal held that since the Kalyanamandapam is being used for various other purposes, it comes within the definition of Industry and second respondent is workman and she is also entitled for reinstatement, since she worked for more than five years. Thus, the Labour Court granted reinstatement with full back wages from 13.10.1996 till 10.12.1998 and with continuity of service. Questioning the said award, management filed the present writ petition. Heard both sides and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. There is no dispute that the respondent-workman had worked as Casual Sweeper in TTD Kalyanamandapam from 1.8.1991 to 13.10.1996. It is also not in dispute that her services were terminated with effect from 13.10.1996 without any notice. Under those circumstances, the Labour Court held that the workman is entitled for reinstatement with back wags from 13.10.1996 till 10.12.1998 and with continuity of service. This arrangement seems to have been made in view of the fact that the respondent-workman approached the Labour with some delay. I am of the opinion that the award passed by the Labour Court dos not call for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Further, the petitioner-management is directed to reinstate the respondent- workman forthwith without any further delay. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 1.4.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.1231 of 2005 1.4.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.1231 of 2005 Date: 1st April, 2010 Between: Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, represented by its Executive Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor district & another. .. Petitioners And The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Presiding Officer and another. .. Respondents