IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.29858 of 1997 Between: Manager-Installation, Sanathnagar Installation, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Hyderabad and another. … Petitioners And Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Ms. Uma Devi for Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy. Counsel for the respondents: None for R.1. Sri G.Vidyasagar for R.2. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash award dated 25-7-1997 passed in I.D.No.81 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal- cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad-respondent No.1 (for short “the Industrial Tribunal”). Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and perused the record. Respondent No.2 raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”) questioning the purported retrenchment and claiming back-wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits. The Industrial Tribunal, while refusing to reinstate respondent No.2, however, held that he is entitled for retrenchment benefits as per rules and also directed the petitioners to consider his case under Section 25-H of the Act. A perusal of the award shows that the Industrial Tribunal rendered contradictory findings. In paragraph-6 it held: “…The petitioner’s contention is that he worked continuously from 1993-95 till his termination of service. No letter of appointment is filed by him. The documents filed by him only show that he attended certain duties as casual labourer with intermittent intervals. It cannot be said that he had worked continuously, the required period in an year. Of course, there is material to show that his services were utilized during 1993-94, 1994-95 for more than 240 days though not continuous”. Having held as above, in the same paragraph, the Industrial Tribunal further held: “…The material available on record as per the pay slips show that the respondent corporation has engaged petitioner for more than 240 days continuously in an year and as such he is entitled to benefits of Section 25-F. In such event even the petitioner has worked as casual labour he is entitled to retrenchment benefits ”. In my considered view, the findings of the Industrial Tribunal are perverse. Having held that the documents filed by respondent No.2 show that he did not work continuously for the required period in a year, it again rendered a diametrically contrary finding in the same paragraph. Therefore, as rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the award of the Industrial Tribunal to this extent suffers from patent error requiring interference of this Court. As the direction to pay the petitioner the benefits under Section 25-F of the Act stems from these contradictory findings, the direction to the extent of payment of benefits under Section 25-F cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. However, as conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.2 is entitled to the benefit under Section 25-H of the Act as there is no dispute about respondent No.2 working in the petitioner-Corporation before termination of his services. The award of the Industrial Tribunal is accordingly modified by confining the direction given by it to the extent of considering the case of respondent No.2 under Section 25-H only. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:1-12-2008 MNR