IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 63 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17/08/1999 in WP NO : 1734 OF 1995 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Executive Engg APSRTC , Musheerabad Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The labour court-I A.P Rep by its Presiding Officer Hyderabad. 2 K.Ramloo S/o. Narsimha R/o. 64/2 , RTC Colony Kachiguda , Hyderabad. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.V.T.M.PRASAD (S.C.FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO. The Court made the following : HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.A.No.63 of 2001 ORDER: (per HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN) This appeal is preferred against the order in W.P.No.1734 of 1995 dated 17.8.1999 whereby the Learned Single Judge confirmed the award of the Labour Court I, Hyderabad in I.D.No.262 of 1993 dated 2.11.1993. The 2nd respondent had approached the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act alleging violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The appellant herein contended that there was no employer employee relationship between the Corporation and the 2nd respondent. The Labour Court, after examining Exhibits.A.1 to A.4, observed that the very fact that the 2nd respondent was issued several identification cards cast a doubt on the reality of the petitioner being appointed by the Corporation and that the identification cards and the bus passes showed that the 2nd respondent might have been engaged for a temporary period to work with the Assistant Engineer and that the Assistant Engineer was in the habit of extracting work from the workers appointed by the contractor. Having so held, the Labour Court further observed that the 2nd respondent’s services had been drafted by the Assistant Engineer and that it was a fit case where the 2nd respondent could be considered for appointment and regularization by the Corporation as and when they recruited man- mazdoors giving preference to workers like the 2nd respondent. The Labour Court observed that the workers, who admittedly worked for some time under the Assistant Engineer would acquire a preferential qualification over all the other applicants for appointment to man-mazdoor posts as and when such recruitment took place, that it was a fit case for taking into consideration the nature of work done by the 2nd respondent in the Corporation under the Assistant Engineer, that he should be given preference and should be appointed as man-mazdoor in the recruitment to be made thereafter by the respondent by sending call letters to the 2nd respondent like workers and that he should be selected if otherwise found fit for appointment to the post. Accordingly an Award was passed directing the appellant to give preference to the 2nd respondent over all other direct applicants for appointment as man- mazdoor in the vacancies that would arise in future by directly sending call letter to the 2nd respondent and appointing him if he was otherwise fit to be appointed. In the order under appeal, the Learned Single Judge, while noting the contention of the Corporation that the directions given by the Labour Court were inconsistent with its findings held that while technically it was so, the Labour Court having found that the services of the 2nd respondent were availed by the Engineers of the corporation had issued the direction and therefore the award was not vitiated by perversity warranting interference. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Corporation, would contend that the 2nd respondent was not even an employee of the Corporation, that there was no employer and employee relationship between the 2nd respondent and the Corporation, that the Labour Court, having recorded a finding that there was no employer and employee relationship, had exceeded its jurisdiction in directing that the case of the 2nd respondent should be considered for appointment giving him preference over all other directly recruited candidates who sought appointment to the services of the Corporation and that such a direction could, in any event, not have been passed in proceedings under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, would contend that several similar awards had been implemented by the Corporation and it is only in the two cases presently before this Court that the orders were not implemented. Whether or not the Corporation had implemented other awards is not a matter for examination in Certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is only the legality, or otherwise, of the award which is the subject matter of enquiry. In an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes it is only where an employee’s services have been discharged, dismissed, retrenched or otherwise terminated can the jurisdiction of the Labour Court be invoked. Discharge/dismissal/removal/termination from service pre- supposes the existence of an employer-employee relationship in the absence of which the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be invoked. Further, even if there exists an employer-employee relationship between the appellant Corporation and the second respondent workman, the mere fact that the workman had worked for spells of very short duration does not confer on him any protection under the Industrial Disputes Act unless he has fulfilled the requirement of having rendered continuous service of one year under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is only when a workman has rendered continuous service of one year or 240 days service in the 12 months period preceding his termination is he entitled for protection under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court has not even examined the question whether or not Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act has been violated in the case on hand. The Award of the Labour Court suffers from patent illegality apparent on the face of the record and is accordingly quashed. Since, however, none of the aforementioned matters have been examined by the Labour Court, we consider it appropriate, while setting aside the award, to remand the matter back to the Labour Court for its consideration afresh in accordance with law, basing on the evidence available on record and after hearing both the parties. The Labour Court shall consider the matter as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that both parties can raise all such contentions as are available to them in law before the Labour Court. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. _____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 30-6-2008 ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Asp/gs