IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.20670 of 1995 and 17832 of 1996 W.P.No.20670 of 1995 Between: Agricultural Market Committee, Rep. Special Grade Secretary/Person- in-Charge- Sri Venkatesw S/o. Subbaiah, 44(yrs) Repalle, Guntur. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government . of A.P., Rep. Secretary. Labour Employment Training and Factories, Hyderabad. 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur. 3 Nuvva Sambaiah, S/o. Veeraswamy Santa Cheruvu. Isukapalli Post, Repalle Mandal, Guntur. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction on the file of the 1st respondent, issued in G.O.Rt.No. 1393 Labour Employment dated 05/06/1995 in pursuance of the Award passed in I.D.No. 306/1990 dated 17/04/1995 on the file of the Labour Court Guntur and quash the same as not legal and valid. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR AGRL.MRKT.COMTTS) Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR LABOUR W.P.No.17832 of 1996 Between: 1 Muvva Sambaiah (died) S/o Veeraswamy, R/o Agricultural Market Committee, Repalli, Guntur District. 2 Muvva Veeramma W/o late Muvva Sambaiah (hindu) R/o Isukapalli (V) Repalli (M), Guntur District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Agricultural Market Committe, rep by its Chairman & person in Charge, Repalli, Guntur District. 2 The Special Grade Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Repalli, Guntur Dist. 3 The Deputy Director of Marketing, Guntur, Guntur Dist. 4 The Joint Director of Marketing, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 5 The Assistant Director of Marketing, Gintur, Guntur District. 6 The Director of Marketing, Hyderabad, A.P 7 The Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad, A.P. 8 The state of A.P rep by its Secretary to Govt, Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 9 The State of A.P rep by its Secretary to Government Food & Agriculture Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent is not treating the period of termination as duty in pursuance of the Award made in I.D No.306 of 1990 dt.17.4.1995 and also in accordance with the orders issued in G.O.RT.NO.1393, labour, Employment, Training & Factories (Lab-i) Dept. dt. 5.6.95 and declaring the action of the Respondent in not regularising the service of the Petitioner as Watchman and not paying the regular pay scale salary attached to the said post, as Wholly arbitrary, highly illegal, and unconstitutional, being Violative of Arts. 14,16,19 & 21 of the Constitution of India, and Consequently direct the Respondent, to regularise the service of the petitioner in the category in G.O.MS.NO.212, finance & planning Department, dt.22,4,94 with all consequential benefit such as arrears of salary seniority, etc.... Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.D.PANDURANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR AGRICULTURE The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER : As the issues raised in both these writ petitions are inter-related, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Writ petition No.20670 of 1995 is filed by the Agricultural Market Committee, Repalle in Guntur District, challenging the validity of the Award, dated 17.04.1995, passed by the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D.No.306 of 1990 in favour of respondent No.3, whereas writ petition No.17832 of 1996 is filed by respondent No.3 in writ petition No.20670 of 1995, seeking to declare the action of respondents in not treating the period of termination as ‘on duty’ in the Award dated 17.04.1995 in I.D.No.306 of 1990, and for further directions to regularize the service of the petitioner. For the purpose of disposal, I refer to the parties as arrayed in writ petition No.20670 of 1995. 3. The petitioner is the Agricultural Market Committee. The 3rd respondent was initially appointed as a Watchman on daily wage basis by Office Order dated 16.08.1978. Though initial appointment was for a period of one year, it was extended from 16.09.1978 to 15.10.1978, and by further orders dated 16.10.1978, his services were continued indefinitely. The services of respondent No.3 were terminated by an order dated 22.05.1980. Though the order of termination was passed in the year 1980, a Decade thereafter, the 3rd respondent has raised the industrial dispute in I.D.No.306 of 1990 by filing an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court, Guntur, by an Award dated 17th April 1995, by recording a finding that though the 3rd respondent was working as a Watchman and continued in service for a period of more than 240 days prior to the date of termination i.e. on 22.05.1980, ordered for reinstatement, but denied the backwages on the ground that he approached the Tribunal belatedly after ten years of termination of his service. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that pursuant to the Award of the Tribunal, the 3rd respondent was reinstated into service on 15.05.1996 and that while in service, he died on 26.05.1998 during the pendency of the writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the Market Committee submits that as much as the 3rd respondent was appointed without following the Rules framed under the Agricultural Market Committees Act, he was not entitled to claim any benefits under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted that as much as the post of Watchan was covered under the Constitution of Service of the Agricultural Market Committees, the concept of ‘Industry’ stands excluded and the termination cannot be treated as retrenchment within the meaning of the provision under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in writ petition No.17832 of 1996, submits that though the petitioner was continued in service for more than ten years, he was not regularised. It is further submitted that there was no reason for depriving him of the benefit of service for the period from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement. 7. Though the learned counsel on both sides have argued on their respective stand, however, in view of the death of the workman during the pendency of these writ petitions, the cause in these writ petitions will not survive. More over, in the writ petition filed by the Market Committee (W.P.No.20670 of 1995), though it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel that the termination of 3rd respondent cannot be construed as retrenchment as much as the post of Watchman is covered in the Constitution of the service of the Agricultural Market Committees, but the Watchman post which is covered in the Constitution of Market Committee service is on regular basis with the benefit of time scale. Even according to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent was appointed only on daily wage basis and in that view of the matter, this argument of the learned Standing Counsel cannot be accepted. Undisputedly, the 3rd respondent has worked for more than 240 days continuously and since he was retrenched without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Tribunal has rightly ordered for his reinstatement. 8. Though in the writ petition filed by the workman i.e. in writ petition No.17832 of 1996, it is argued by the learned counsel that he was to be regularized, but as much as he had died during the pendency of the writ petition, no direction can be given at this point of time to the Market Committee to regularize his service. In any event, he was not appointed pursuant to a general notification for employment in the Market Committee, and as he was appointed without following due process of law, no rights would accrue to him to seek regularization. Therefore, in view of the death of the workman, no direction can be given as prayed for. Even to claim the benefit of service for the interregnum period from the date of termination to the date of Award, it is to be noticed that though the service of the workman was terminated by an order dated 22.05.1980, the workman has approached the Tribunal belatedly i.e. nearly after a Decade. In this view of the matter also, the Tribunal did not extend the other benefits to the workman. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the Award passed by the Tribunal, or to grant any relief as prayed by the workman in writ petition No.17832 of 1996. 10. Both the writ petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 22nd January 2009. ajr