IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2875 of 2001 Between: K.Seetha Ramulu, S/o. Veeraiah, R/o. Khammam ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Godavarikhani. 2 The Secretary, Major Irrigation Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Construction Corporation Limited, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 4 The Deputy General Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Construction Corporation Limited, Tekulapalli Circle, Khammam. 5 The Deputy General Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Construction Corporation Limited, Supernumerary Unit, Construction Circle, K.C.Campus, Huzurabad, Karimanagar District. ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records from the First Respondent and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI and quash the Award passed by the 1st Respondent in I.D.No.385 of 1999 dated 9-6-200 in not granting any relief to the petitioner as illegal, unjust, contrary to law and perverse and grant all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Award dated 9-6-2000 passed in I.D.No.385 of 1990 on the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Godavarikhani. Petitioner is the workman. Respondents 2 to 5 are the Management. It appears, petitioner worked as Work Assistant on daily wage basis with the 4th respondent-Corporation from 30-4-1977 to 21-5- 1979. According to the petitioner, his services were abruptly terminated orally on 21-5-1979. Therefore, he raised a dispute under Section 2- A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (for short ‘the Act;) in I.D.No.385 of 1990 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani. It was the case of the petitioner before the Labour Court that his services were orally terminated and he had completed 240 days of service preceding the date of his termination from the services of the Corporation and, therefore the termination of his services is contrary to the provisions of Section 25-F,G and H of the Act. The respondent- Management resisted the claim of the petitioner by filing a detailed counter and denying the allegations made by the petitioner. However, the Management did not deny the fact that the petitioner worked from 30-4-1977 to 21-5-1979. It is the case of the Management that the petitioner abandoned the duties after he went on leave and, therefore, the question of termination of his services does not arise. In the earlier round of litigation, the I.D. was rejected on the ground that the dispute was raised after more than 10 years. Under those circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition being W.P.No.19746 of 1995, which was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Labour Court for reconsideration of the matter on merits. Thereafter, the Labour Court took up the I.D. for trial. On his behalf, the petitioner examined himself as W.W.1 and got marked Exs.W1 to W4 and on behalf of the Management M.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.M1 was marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that respondents 2 to 5 herein have taken the plea that the petitioner has abandoned the service and the petitioner also failed to produce the order removing him from service; as such, no relief was granted and ultimately, the claim was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The fact that the petitioner worked with the 4th respondent- Corporation from 30-4-1977 to 21-5-1979 is not in dispute. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has worked for more than 2 years and he had completed 240 days of service in the calendar year preceding the date of his termination from service. This aspect was not taken into consideration by the Labour Court while dealing with the claim filed by the petitioner. The Labour Court simply stated that though the Management has asserted that there was no termination order passed by them and in fact, the petitioner abandoned the service, the petitioner has not placed any evidence to show that his services were terminated. This approach made by the Labour Court is neither recognized under the law nor there is any proof to show that the petitioner has abandoned the service. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that since the petitioner had put in more than 240 days of service in the calendar year preceding the date of his termination, the termination is contrary to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. As such, the oral termination of the petitioner is illegal and liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to be reinstated into service. However, in view of the fact that he raised the dispute after more than 10 years, he is not entitled for any back wages or continuity of service or other attendant benefits. Thus, the petitioner shall be reinstated into service afresh. Accordingly, the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be modified and is modified to be read as under: “In the result, the respondent-Management is directed to reinstate the petitioner afresh. However, he is not entitled to back wages or continuity of service or attendant benefits”. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. 24-4-2008 prk