THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 18496 of 1999 Dated: 10.06.2010 Between: The Sub-Divisional Officer, Department of Telephones, Karimnagar District. … Petitioner And S.Hanumanthu, And another. … Respondents HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ petition No. 18496 of 1999 O R D E R: The Department of Telephones, Jagityal filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that the award dated 22.04.1999 in I.D.No.30 of 1996 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad is arbitrary and illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the material available on record. The 1st respondent herein (herein after referred to as the workman) filed I.D.No.30 of 1996 claiming that he had worked for more than 240 days in the Department of Telephones as Casual Labourer and that he was retrenched in January, 1987 without issuing any notice or paying one month wages in lieu of notice. Accordingly, he sought for reinstatement. In the counter filed before the Tribunal, it was contended by the Management/writ petitioner that the workman never worked continuously, but he worked intermittently during the years 1986 and 1987 and that apart he was engaged purely on temporary basis as Casual Labourer on daily wages. It was also contended that the workman himself deserted the work and he approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour for conciliation after six years which itself shows that the workman’s claim was not bona fide. Before the Tribunal, the workman who got himself examined as W.W.1, stated that he joined as Casual Labourer in March, 1986 on daily wages and worked for more than 268 days. It was also stated that he was informed orally not to do any work without assigning any reasons whereas his juniors were continued in service. His evidence was corroborated by W.W.2 and W.W.3. The Management, except examining M.W.1, did not adduce any evidence to contradict the specific plea of the workman. It was observed by the Tribunal below that in the cross-examination of W.W.1, the Management had not even suggested that he himself had deserted the services. More over, M.W.1 in his chief-examination stated that he could not say whether the workman had stopped coming on his own volition or due to lack of work from January, 1998. On appreciation of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal below held that the retrenchment of the workman was not justified. Accordingly, it was held that he was entitled to relief of reinstatement, however back wages were denied on account of the delay of more than six years in raising the dispute. Having carefully considered the entire material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to hold that the Tribunal had committed any illegality in directing reinstatement. The finding of fact recorded are supported by the evidence adduced by the parties and the conclusion arrived at does not suffer from any arbitrariness or unreasonableness. Hence, the impugned award warrants no interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J Date: 10.06.2010 KLP