HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.22621 of 2005 Dated 14.6.2011 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Giddalur Depot, Giddalur, Prakasham District and others. …Petitioners. And: Kollu Venkata Subbaiah and another. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.22621 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned Award dated 20.12.2004 made in I.D.No.150/1996 o the file of the Labour Court, Guntur, published on 15.2.2005 directing reinstatement of the 1st respondent into service, without continuity of service and without back wages and regularization of his services within three months from the date of reinstatement, and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the respondent- workman is a casual shramik (cleaner) of the petitioner- Corporation attached to Giddalur Depot and the respondent- workman was disengaged from service by an order dated 21.7.1994 for his absconding duty and misbehavior with Mechanical Supervisors. In this connection after conducting due enquiry into the charges leveled against him in the Charge Sheet dated 5.3.1993 giving reasonable opportunity to defend himself and on appeal preferred by him, the order of removal was confirmed by the Divisional Manager, Podili Division, Podili on 12.10.1994 and an appellate order was confirmed in review preferred by the 1st respondent-workman by the Regional Manager, Prakasham Region, Ongole on 11.12.1995. Thereupon, the respondent-workman filed an application in I.D.No.150 of 1996 under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 before the Labour Court, Guntur against the petitioner-Corporation questioning the validity of the order of removal dated 21.7.1994. Labour Court partly allowed the application directing the reinstatement of the 1st respondent-workman into service as cleaner with his last pay drawn without back wages and without continuity of service and also directing regularisation of his services within three months. It is further directed that the 1st respondent is not entitled to any monetary benefit from the date of removal till the date of that order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking to quash the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 20.10.2005, dismissed W.P.M.P.No.28968 of 2005 seeking to stay of execution of the award dated 20.12.2004 made in I.D.No.150 of 1996 on the file of the 2nd respondent Labour Court. According to the respondent-workman, he worked as cleaner from 29.6.1990 to 26.2.1993 and he was absent from duty for which a domestic enquiry was conducted. The respondent- work man was disengaged from the service by order dated 21.7.1994. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-workman preferred an I.D.No.150 of 1996 before the Labour Court. Before the labour Court, no oral evidence was adduced on either side. But Exs.M.1 to M.36 were marked on behalf of the petitioner-corporation. No documents were marked on behalf of the respondent-workman. On consideration of the material available on record, the Labour Court allowed the petition partly which reads as follows: “In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The petitioner-workman shall be reinstated into service as cleaner with his last pay drawn without back wages and without continuity of service. His services shall be regularized within three months. The petitioner-workman is not entitled to any monetary benefits from the date of removal till the date of this order.” Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-APSRTC. It is pertinent to note that on 26.4.2011, the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC while contending that under Section 11 A of the I.D. Act, the Court has no power to direct the corporation to regularize the services of the workman, has placed reliance on the decision of this court in A.P.S.R.T.C. REP. BY ITS DEPOT MANAGER, TANDUR DEPOT, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT Vs. MOHD. ANWAR ALI ([1]). The relevant paragraph of the above order made in W.P.No.26406 of 1999 dated 18.2.2009 reads thus: “For the foresaid reasons, in view of the admitted position that the respondent-workman has worked for more than three years and his services were retrenched without following the procedure contemplated under Section 25.F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Tribunal has rightly ordered for his reinstatement. But, at the same time, the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner-Corporation has contended that while considering the application filed under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in directing for absorption of respondent into service on permanent basis as and when regular vacancies arise. I do find force in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing such directions for absorption. As much as the scope of the application filed under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is limited to consider whether the retrenchment attracts the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act or not, there is no authority or jurisdiction for the Tribunal to direct for absorption of the respondent on permanent basis. As much as the respondent has chosen to work on casual basis as a Cleaner, no direction can be given either for his absorption or regularization. It is to be noted that at no point of time an advertisement was given inviting applications for filling up the vacancies, in the absence of which, in violation of the equality Clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution, based on the back door entry by the respondent/workman, he cannot be directed to be absorbed into service of the Corporation on permanent basis.” In that view of the matter, by the decision 1st cited, this Court allowed the writ petition partly by setting aside the order of the Tribunal to the extent of absorption of the respondent as cleaner on permanent basis. In the present case on hand also, admittedly the 1st respondent-workman used to work as a casual cleaner. Due to his repeated absence from duty and misbehavior with Mechanical Supervisors, an enquiry was made against him and charges were framed and were proved against him and thereby, he was removed from service. After availing the departmental remedies, the 1st respondent-workman approached the Labour Court by filing an I.D.No.150 of 1996. The Labour Court partly allowed the application directing the reinstatement of the 1st respondent-workman into service as cleaner with his last pay drawn without back wages and without continuity of service and also directing regularisation of his services within three months. It is further directed that the 1st respondent is not entitled to any monetary benefit from the date of removal till the date of that order. The learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner-Corporation while referring the decision 1st cited and while supporting the order of tribunal for reinstatement of the 1st respondent- workman, has contended that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in directing for regularization of the services of the 1st respondent-workman. I do find force in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing direction for regularization of services of the 1st respondent-workman within a period of three months. In that view of the matter and in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the principles laid down in the decision 1st cited, coupled with the contention of the learned Standing Counsel and in view of the fact this matter relates to the year 2005, I feel it just and proper to dispose of the writ petition by setting aside the order of the tribunal to the extent of regularization of the services of the respondent as cleaner only. It is needless to observe that the other findings of the Labour Court needs no interference. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 14.6.2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.22621 of 2005 Dated 14.6.2011 [1] W.P. No.26406 of 1999 dated 18.2.09