THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 803 of 2003 O R D E R: This writ petition is directed against an Award made in LCID No. 35 of 2001 dated 24.9.2002 on the file of learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad, whereunder the application filed by respondent No.2 under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act was allowed directing the petitioner herein to reinstate respondent No.2 – workman into service on or before 1st November, 2002 on daily wages of Rs.45/- per day or whatever more he is entitled to, without granting any backwages. It appears, respondent No.2 – workman was appointed as Sweeper on 15.3.1991 and subsequently his services were utilized as an Attender and he worked in that capacity for 10 years. He had worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year. However, his services were terminated orally without any notice or without conducting any enquiry. Petitioner-management filed a counter before the Labour Court stating that respondent No.2 was never appointed much less on 15.3.1991 as a sweeper on daily wage basis. He never worked as Attender and never performed the work with them. Since he used to come to their Branch frequently on one pretext or the other and did some work of loading and unloading in the bank as hamali, small amount was paid towards hamali charges along with others when engaged as permanent employee for the same work or employed even as a sweeper. Ex.W-1 letter was not available on record and the veracity of the document is under examination of the bank. The question of oral termination does not arise as he never worked for 240 days continuously in a year nor had more than 10 years of service. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of petitioner- workman, he examined himself as WW1 and got marked Letter No.F/4/dated 27.4.98 as Ex.W-1. On the other hand, on behalf of respondent-management, one M.A.S. Qureshi was examined as MW- 1, however, no document was marked. After detailed consideration of the entire material available on record including the oral and the documentary evidence, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that what the petitioner- workman says is correct. As such, the Labour Court directed the respondent-management to reinstate the petitioner-workman into service. Aggrieved thereby, the management filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner-management Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana strenuously contended that absolutely there was no evidence adduced by the respondent No.2 – workman to prove that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and that he had 10 years of service in the bank. The letter under Ex.W-1 has no meaning whatsoever and the same ought not to have been taken into consideration by the Labour Court. The Labour Court grossly erred in accepting the statement of the workman and directing his reinstatement into service. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent No.2- workman supported the Award passed by the Labour Court and stated that in spite of several opportunities given to the management to disprove Ex.W-1, they have not availed the same. Though it is stated that the signature on Ex.W-1 is that of one Nagabhushanam, the then Branch Manager, he was neither called and examined nor any other person was examined except MW-1 to show that respondent No.2 – workman was not employed in the Bank. Therefore, the Labour Court has not committed any error in calling for interference of this Court and the writ petition deserves dismissal. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. The Labour Court has given a categorical finding that when opportunity was given to disprove Ex.W-1 which was said to have been signed by one Nagabhushanam, who was the then Branch Manager in the Bank, he was not examined in spite of adjourning the matter twice nor Mr. Hyder, who was said to be the successor in office of Mr.Nagabhushanam was examined in this regard. On the other hand, Ex.W-1 bears file number and date. Though file number and date are available, petitioner-management has simply denied the same and, therefore, the Labour Court rightly rejected the contention of the management. The relevant findings of the Labour Court are as under: “It may be seen that admittedly it is the allegation of the petitioner that he has worked from March, 1991 as sweeper on daily wages and Attender work was also extracted from him. he has put in more than 10 years of service. The respondent denies the same. The petitioner relies on Ex.W1 written 1998 which obviously was written for absorption. Had he not put in considerable length of service it would not have been written. MW1 never worked in that branch. MW1 who was again recalled deposed that Mr. Nagabhushanam who signed on Ex.W1 is now working at Dornakal, Anantapur District as Branch Manager. He was not called for to give any evidence. According to the bank all the vouchers are missing. No efforts were made to search even Ex.W1 in the office of the Assistant General Manager. Further, Mr. Nagabhushanam alleged writer of Ex.W1 though in service and his address is known is not examined to deny Ex.W1. Hence, it has to be taken as correct. Therefore, I hold that whatever the petitioner is saying is correct. Hence, the respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner on or before 1st November, 2002 on daily wages of Rs.45 per day or whatever more he is entitled. However, he shall not be entitled for any backwages”. I am of the considered opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned Award nor it can be said that there was any evidence before the Labour Court to say that respondent No.2 – workman did not work for more than 240 days nor he had not put in more than 10 years of service. Therefore, no interference is required by this Court into the Award passed by the Labour Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 03-02-2011. MVB.