THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 22659 of 2000 Dated: 27.01.2011 Between: Deputy Director of Social Welfare, Guntur. … Petitioner And Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur and another. … Respondents THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 22659 of 2000 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed seeking a certiorari to call for the records relating to the award dated 13.03.2001 in I.D.No.1133 of 1992 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur and to quash the same being arbitrary and illegal. The 2nd respondent herein preferred I.D.No.1133 of 1992 under Section 2- A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’) claiming that he joined the services of the writ petitioner as a watchman on 06.03.1981 and his services were terminated on 01.01.1987 without any notice as required under Section 25F of the Act. The Industrial Dispute was contested by the writ petitioner contending that it was not an Industry within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the Act. It was also contended that the services of the 2nd respondent as watchman were engaged on temporary basis for a specific period and therefore, he did not fall within the meaning of workman. It was further contended that the 2nd respondent himself had voluntarily left the service without any permission on 18.03.1985 and there was no termination as alleged. On the basis of the said pleadings, the following points were formulated by the Labour Court for consideration : 1) Whether the respondent Department is not an industry as claimed by the respondent? 2) whether there is any termination of service of the petitioner on 01.01.1987 as pleaded by the petitioner? 3) If not, what relief the petitioner is entitled to? Both the parties adduced evidence and on appreciation of the same, the labour Court recorded a finding that the writ petitioner was an Industry as defined under Section 2(j) of the Act. It was also found that the 2nd respondent worked for more than 240 days and that he was in continuous service even after 24.11.1985 and that his services were terminated illegally in violation of Section 25F of the Act. Accordingly, while holding that the termination of the services of the 2nd respondent herein was illegal, reinstatement was ordered with 50% back-wages. The said award passed by the Labour Court, dated 13.03.2001 is under challenge in this writ petition filed by the employer The learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the writ petitioner vehemently contended that the findings recorded by the Tribunal below are unsustainable and therefore, the reinstatement ordered by the labour Court cannot be sustained. I have also heard Sri P. PhalgunaRao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. Such findings of fact recorded on application of the mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties warrant no interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to the clear findings that the 2nd respondent herein was a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Act and that termination of his services was in violation of Section 25F of the Act, the conclusion that he was entitled to reinstatement cannot be held to be erroneous or illegal. The labour Court was also justified in confining the back- wages to 50% in view of the admitted fact that the 2nd respondent had moved the labour Court only in the year 1992 whereas the services were terminated in the year 1987. In the circumstances, interference by this Court is not warranted on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 27 .01.2011 KLP