IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.19614 and 22414 of 1999 WP.No.19614 of 1999 Between: Tompala Trinadham … Petitioner AND The Director of Social Welfare Dept., State of A.P., Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1&2: AGP for Social Welfare WP.No.22414 of 1999 Between: The Director of Social Welfare Dept., State of A.P., Hyderabad & another. … Petitioners AND Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rep., by its Presiding Officer, Visakhapatnam, & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : AGP for Social Welfare Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.19614 and 22414 of 1999 COMMON ORDER:- In these two writ petitions the parties and the subject matter are common. Hence, they are being heard and disposed of together by a common order. For convenience, they are referred to as they are arrayed in WP.No.19614 of 1999. Heard Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner was engaged as a cook on daily wage basis in the social welfare department of Gullaseetharamapuram (for short, ‘G.S.Puram’) in the year 1987. He claimed that as he completed five years of continuous service by 25.11.1993, his services were regularized in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. According to the petitioner, he was removed from service with effect from 01.01.1995 without notice and payment of compensation. He, therefore, raised an industrial dispute registered as I.D.No.24 of 1995 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, respondent No.3 herein (for short, ‘the Labour Court’). Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a counter in the said dispute, wherein they admitted that the petitioner worked as cook in the boys hostel, G.S. Puram, as daily wage worker from 01.01.1988 to 24.04.1988 for a period of 114 days and from 13.06.1988 to 09.09.1988 for a period of 89 days. It is their further case that the petitioner has not worked from 10.09.1988 to October, 1992 and that he was not sponsored by the employment exchange. They also denied the petitioner’s claim that his services were regularized in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence before the Labour Court. The petitioner filed Exs.W1 and W2, which pertain to proceedings dated 27.07.1994, which have been issued by the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Srikakulam, purporting to regularize the services of the petitioner as cook in G.S.Puram. The petitioner also filed Ex.W3, service certificate issued by the Warden of the Government Boys Hostel, G.S.Puram, showing that he worked for 313 days from 11.09.1987 to 09.09.1988. On the basis of the evidence adduced before the Labour Court, it has given the finding that the evidence produced by the petitioner proved that he worked as claimed by him as a cook on daily wage basis. Accordingly, it held that the order of retrenchment of the petitioner was illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’) and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full backwages and continuity of service. The petitioner filed WP.No.19614 of 1999 complaining of non-implementation of the said award while respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed WP.No.22414 of 1999 questioning the award of the Labour Court. At the hearing, Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after filing of WP.No.19614 of 1999 and in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court, respondent Nos.1 and 2 implemented the award to the extent of reinstating the petitioner and that in view of the stay, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not paid backwages. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2 strongly contended that the impugned award is liable to be set aside as the petitioner failed to produce evidence to show that he worked beyond 09.09.1988 and had put in 240 man days. He also submitted that though respondent Nos.1 and 2 have raised the contention that no regularization order was passed, the Labour Court failed to advert to the said contention. Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner opposed these contentions and sought to sustain the award. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader. As regards the first contention, the Labour Court took note of the fact that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have failed to produce the musters, which would have clinchingly decided the issue. The Labour Court also relied on Ex.W3, the certificate issued by the Warden in support of the claim of the petitioner. As respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to produce the record, the Labour Court has rightly drawn the adverse inference. Having regard to the evidence produced by the petitioner, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner worked for not less than 240 days and therefore his retrenchment in violation of Section 25-F of the Act is illegal. This Court, while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not expected to re- appreciate the evidence and substitute its view. As I am satisfied that the findings of the Labour Court are based on legal evidence, the first contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is liable to be rejected. As regards the second contention, I do not find any merit in it either. The issue of petitioner’s regularization has no bearing on the issue whether the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are required to be followed or not. Irrespective of the status of the petitioner, when once it is found that he has put in the required number of man days to attract Section 25-F of the Act, the further question whether his claim that his services were regularized or not, pales into insignificance. In this view of the matter, the second contention cannot be sustained. Learned Assistant Government Pleader finally submitted that award of backwages is not justified. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that his client is prepared to forego 50% of the backwages. In view of this submission, the award of the Labour Court is modified by reducing the backwages to 50%. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall deposit 50% backwages within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of both the writ petitions, WPMP.No.28091 of 1999 in WP.No.22414 of 1999 is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 30.12.2008 ES