IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL Nos.1118, 1119 & 1135 of 2008 W.A.No.1118 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 15.04.2008 in W.P.No.15650 OF 2003 on the ﬁle of the High Court) Between: The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner, presently the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner & Special Officer. ... APPELLANT AND 1 P. Srinivasa Yadav S/o.P.Yadagiri yadaV C/o. P. Raghavendra Reddy,. R/o.7-105/1,Madhurapuri Road No.4, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary Municipal Administration & Urban Development, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad-22 . 3 The Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, AP ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. R. Ramachandra Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.1: Mr. P. Raghavendra Reddy Counsel for Respondent No2: G.P., Municipal Admin., and Urban Development. Counsel for Respondent No.3: GP., Labour W.A.No.1118 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the 0rder dated 15.04.2008 in W.P.No.15664 OF 2003 on the ﬁle of the High Court) Between: The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner & Special Officer, presently the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. ... APPELLANT AND 1 M.A. Hai, S/o. Shaik Imam, Ex.Section Officer, C/o. P. Raghavender Reddy, R/o.7-105/1, Madhurapuri, Road No. 4, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad -22 3 The Industrial Tribunal-1, Hyderabad, A.P. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. R. Ramachandra Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.1: Mr. P. Raghavendra Reddy Counsel for Respondent No2: G.P., Municipal Admin., and Urban Development. Counsel for Respondent No.3: GP., Labour W.A.No.1135 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 15/04/2008 in WP NO : 15857 OF 2003 on the ﬁle of the High Court.) Between: The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. rep.by Commissioner. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Syed Qudratullah Hussani, S/o. Shede Mohd Hussani, C/o. P. Raghavender Reddy, R/o. 7-105/1, Madhurapuri, Road NO.4, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented By its Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad-22. 3 The Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, A.P. .....RESPONDENT(S) Common Judgment: (Per HC, J) Being aggrieved by the common order dated 15.04.2008 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.15650, 15664 and 15857 of 2003, this appeal has been filed. 2. Facts leading to the present litigation in a nutshell are as under: The respondents-workmen herein were appointed to work in the appellant-Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. Without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act), their services had been terminated. Being aggrieved by the impugned action of termination of services, the respondents- workmen had approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that as the respondents- workmen had worked for more than 240 days in a year, it was not open to the appellant-Corporation to terminate their services without following the provisions of the Act and passed an Award directing that the respondents-workmen be reinstated into service. The Award made by the Tribunal was challenged by the appellant by ﬁling the aforesaid writ petitions, which have been rejected. Therefore, these appeals have been filed by the appellant-Corporation. 3. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and looking to the facts of the case, we are of the view that as the respondents- workmen had worked for more than 240 days in a year, it was not open to the appellant-Corporation to terminate their services without following the provisions of the Act. 4. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant- Corporation has submitted that the services of the respondents-workmen are not required and they would like to terminate their services in accordance with law. 5. Needless to say that as directed by the Labour court and conﬁrmed by the learned single Judge, the respondents- workmen will have to be reinstated into service and if, thereafter, services of the respondents-workmen are not required, it will be open to the appellant-Corporation to terminate their services in accordance with law. 6. Subject to the above clariﬁcation, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. September 16, 2008 MRR