THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 683 of 2003 Dated 27-01-2011 Between: The Engineer-in-Chief,I & CAD, Major Irrigation, Hyderabad and another. …Petitioners Vs. S. Nageswara Rao and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 683 of 2003 Oral order: This writ petition filed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation and Command Area Development, Major Irrigation, Hyderabad and the Superintending Engineer, O & M Circle, N.S.L.C. Tekulapally, Khammam, is misconceived for more than one reason. It is misconceived since it is not filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh but by two designated officers, who assume to represent the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is misconceived also as there is no discernible reason why it is filed. The first respondent herein was working as a Pump Operator in the Andhra Pradesh Construction Corporation Limited and while so was terminated from service. Aggrieved thereby he applied to the Labour Court under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) in I.D.No. 102 of 1990. By an award dated 26-05-1994 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, the order of termination of the 1st respondent was quashed and the 1st respondent was directed to be reinstated into service with back wages from the date of filing of the I.D.No. 102 of 1990 till the date of his reinstatement. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, the State represented by the Secretary, Irrigation & Command Area Development, Hyderabad and the petitioners herein filed W.P.No. 3124 of 1995 contending that the 1st respondent is not entitled to any relief and the retrenchment of the 1st respondent herein on 06-08-1979 by the Andhra Pradesh State Construction Corporation Limited is legal and valid. By the order dated 26-06-1997, the writ petition was disposed of upholding the award of the Labour Court in I.D.No. 102 of 1990 insofar as the direction of reinstatement is concerned while observing that there is no necessity to pay back wages. The 1st respondent was reinstated to duty on 08-04-1999. The award of the Labour Court in I.D.No. 102 of 1990 was notified in the notice board of the Labour Court as per the prescription of the State Government on 19-09-1994. The 1st respondent/workman filed E.P.No. 32 of 2001 seeking payment of back wages from the date of publishing of the award in the notice board of the Labour Court i.e., 19-09-1994 till the date of his reinstatement i.e., 08-04-1999. In the said E.P., the Labour Court by the order ted 29-08-2002 directed the respondents/writ petitioners to deposit the admitted amounts along with a calculation memo by 03-10-2002. Against this order is the writ petition filed. From the chronology of events cited above, it is clear that the writ petition is misconceived, even on merits. Since what was denied to the 1st respondent/workman by the order of the learned Division Bench dated 26-06-1997 in W.P.No. 3124 of 1995 was back wages awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of industrial dispute while upholding the order of the Labour Court insofar as reinstatement is concerned, it is clear and apparent that the 1st respondent/workman is entitled to be reinstated on publication of the award, under Section 17 of the Act. This the State did by notifying the award in the notice board of the Labour Court on 19-09- 1994. With effect from this date, the 1st respondent/workman is entitled to be reinstated to duty, but was not. He was reinstated only on 08-04-1999. For what reasons he was not reinstated for five long years is inexplicable. Even qua the order of the learned Division Bench of this Court dated 26-06-1997 in W.P.No. 3124 of 1995, the 1st respondent/workman is entitled to reinstatement and wages from the date of his reinstatement in accordance with law. The obligation of the petitioners to reinstate the 1st respondent/workman arose on the publication of the award in the notice board of the Labour Court on 19-09- 1994. With effect from the said date the 1st respondent is entitled for wages. The fact that the petitioners woke up to the legal obligation to reinstate the 1st respondent only on 08-04-1999 is on no account the error of the 1st respondent/workman. On the aforesaid analysis, the 1st respondent/workman is entitled to the relief of wages lawfully due to him. The direction by the Labour Court dated 29-08-2002 in E.P.No. 32 of 2001 in I.D.No. 102 of 1990 does not therefore appear to be vitiated by any error warranting judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 27-01-2011. Pvks