IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT WRIT APPEAL NO : 21054 of 2004 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated in NO : OF on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANT AND .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.21054 OF 2004 O R D E R The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) is before this Court aggrieved by the Award dated 09.02.2004 passed by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.168 of 2001 directing it to pay back wages from 30.07.1998 to 27.04.1999 along with all terminal benefits due to the deceased Conductor, to his legal representatives, petitioners 2 to 6 in the I.D. The admitted facts of the case are that the deceased Conductor was appointed as a daily wage conductor in the service of the APSRTC on 24.12.1994 and worked as such till 30.07.1998. It appears that owing to his participation in a strike, his services were terminated on 30.07.1998. He died on 28.04.1999. Thereafter, his legal representatives filed the subject I.D. before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1947’) alleging that his removal from service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 and accordingly sought back wages along with other attendant benefits. The only plea raised by the APSRTC before the Labour Court was that the deceased Conductor was engaged on daily wage basis and therefore, the APSRTC was justified in terminating his services owing to his participation in the strike by the employees. The Labour Court, however, rightly held that even a daily wage employee who fulfills the requirements of Section 25-B of the Act of 1947 was entitled to the protection of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, and therefore, the termination of services of the deceased Conductor, being in violation thereof, was unsustainable in law. Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the APSRTC, contended that the Labour Court ought not to have awarded back wages keeping in view the fact that the deceased Conductor was not in service during the said period. Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 6, the legal representatives of the deceased Conductor, submitted that half of the back wages have already been remitted to his clients pursuant to the interim orders of this Court and that there was no justification in denying back wages as the termination of services of the deceased Conductor was legally unsustainable. It is not the case of the APSRTC that the deceased Conductor did not fulfill the requirements of Section 25-B of the Act of 1947. Hence, he was entitled to the protection of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 and his retrenchment in violation of the said procedure is clearly illegal. Further, the deceased Conductor lived only for a period of eight months after such illegal retrenchment. The Award of the Labour Court is to the effect that he is entitled to back wages for this short period. I do not see any reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Labour Court. The Award under challenge therefore does not call for any interference by this Court in the present writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 9th OCTOBER, 2009 PGS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.21054 OF 2004 9th OCTOBER, 2009