IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 2053 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 4512 OF 1992 on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANT AND .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:MR.M.N.SRINIVASAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.A.No.2053 OF 2001 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant. There is, however, no representation on behalf of the respondents. The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Anantapur, in its Award in I.D.No.139 of 1989 dated 12.2.1992, had held that termination of the services of the 2nd respondent herein is contrary to Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances in which the 2nd respondent’s services were terminated by the appellant-society, in view of the critical financial position of the appellant which was in the process of liquidation on a liquidator having been appointed, and the appellant had failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove that the 2nd respondent was employed somewhere after retrenchment, the Tribunal directed payment of half of back wages. Having observed that reinstatement of 2nd respondent was not possible as the society was liquidated, the Tribunal held that the 2nd respondent was entitled for another amount equal to the amount granted by way of half back wages towards compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The appellant was directed to pay this total amount within a period of three months from the date of publication of the award and, if it was not paid, the 2nd respondent was held entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Award of the Tribunal was confirmed by the Learned Single Judge who, by order in W.P.No.4512 of 1992 dated 27.4.2001 , observed that since the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that, as per the admission of the management witness, retrenchment compensation had not been paid to the workman, the order directing payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement was a finding of fact which could not be dismissed by the writ court. The Learned Single observed that the Tribunal had, in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, and in exercise of its jurisdiction, granted half the back wages and reinstatement and an amount equal to the back wages towards compensation in lieu of reinstatement as the services of the workman were terminated in December 1987 and he had raised an industrial dispute in the year 1989. The writ petition as filed was dismissed. We have gone through the order of both the Tribunal and the Learned Single Judge and are satisfied that neither of the orders merit interference in appeal. Once an employee’s services are held to have been terminated contrary to Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, his termination is ab-initio void. While the Tribunal in such cases is entitled to direct reinstatement with appropriate back wages, it can also direct payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement as was done in the present case. We see no reason to interfere with the award of the Tribunal or of the Learned Single Judge except to the limited extent that the Tribunal had directed payment of the said amount within three months from the date of publication of the award failing which the 2nd respondent was held entitled to interest at 12% per annum. The Tribunal, having noted that the appellant- society was under liquidation and that a liquidator had already been appointed, could not have granted such a direction since the 2nd respondent cannot claim priority in payment over the dues of the other creditors or employees. Once a liquidator is appointed, under the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, the assets of the society vest in him and fall under his control. He is required to distribute the said assets for repayment of the dues and other liabilities of the society in accordance with law. The 2nd respondent could have only claimed parity in payment of his dues on par with other employees of the society and the creditors, if any, as the case may be, as such payment of dues are required to be made only be in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act and the rules made thereunder. Except to the extent indicated hereinabove, with regards the direction of the Tribunal as to the manner in which the amount was directed to be paid by the Liquidator, and in directing payment of interest at 12% P.A, the award is confirmed in all respects. The writ appeal is dismissed, subject to the aforementioned observations. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date:23-07-2008 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J ASP/GS