IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and HON'BLE JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1117 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 30-08-2006 in W.P.No.12289 OF 2006 on the ﬁle of the High Court) Between: A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, Rep. by its Secretary, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. ... APPELLANT AND 1 Tumuluri Kalyani, W/o. Bhanuprakash, Hindu, R/o. Kakani Nagar, Jaggayyapeta, Krishna District. 2 District Collector & Chairman of Educational Institutions Society, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 3 The Principal, Andhra Pradesh Residential Junior College for Girls, Jaggayyapet, Krishna District. 4 Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.K.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for Respondent No.1: Mr. M. Pitchaiah Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3: G.P., Education Counsel for Respondent No.4: G.P., Labour The Court made the following: Judgment: (Per HC, J) Being aggrieved by the order dated 30-08-2007 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.12289 of 2006, this appeal has been filed. 2. Facts leading to the present litigation in a nutshell are as under: Respondent No.1 was appointed as a daily-wager in Respondent No.3 College. It is an admitted fact that respondent No.1 had worked for more than 240 days in a year and yet without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) services of Respondent No.1 had been terminated. In the circumstances, Respondent No.1 had approached the Labour Court and ﬁnally, after considering the evidence, the Labour Court passed an Award refusing to entertain the case of Respondent No.1 on the ground that as her services were not required, her services have terminated. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Award passed by the Labour Court, Respondent No.1 had ﬁled W.P.No.12289 of 2006. After considering the facts of the case, the learned single Judge set aside the Award and directed reinstatement with full backwages for the reason that it was an admitted fact that Respondent No.1 had worked for more than 240 days in a year and her services had been terminated without following the procedure laid down under Section 25-F of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned single Judge, this appeal has been ﬁled by the employer. 4. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and looking to the facts of the case, we do not ﬁnd any substance in the appeal for the reason that it is not in dispute that Respondent No.1 had worked for more than 240 days in a year and therefore termination of her services was dead in law, especially when provisions of Section 25-F of the Act had not been followed. 5. However, we see only one point, which has been made out by the learned Advocate for the appellant, i.e. with regard to payment of full backwages. 6. Learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 has fairly submitted that looking to the facts of the case, Respondent No.1 is prepared to forego 50% of the backwages so as to avoid further litigation. 7. The oﬀer given by Respondent No.1 appears to be fair and therefore the order passed by the learned single Judge is modified to the effect that Respondent No.1 be reinstated into service with 50% backwages. 8. Subject to the above modiﬁcation, the appeal stands disposed of as allowed to the extended indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. September 11, 2008 MRR