THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.3522 OF 2002 ORDER: The second respondent filed I.D.No.156 of 2000 before the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, against the petitioners under Section 2 A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 {“the Act” for brevity}. It was pleaded that she worked as Sweeper on payment of daily wages in the office of the first respondent since 1984 on compassionate grounds and that she was being paid Rs.500/- per month as salary. It was further stated that subsequently, she was transferred to the (R & B) Inspection Bungalow, attached to the office of the first respondent. Her grievance was that the then Assistant Engineer orally retrenched her, contrary to the provisions under Section 25-F of the Act and directed her not to attend the duties. The petitioners remained ex parte before the Labour Court. Through its award dated 27.12.2000, the Labour Court allowed the I.D. and directed reinstatement of the second respondent with back wages together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of publication of the award till the date of realization thereof. Continuity of service was also granted. The petitioners challenge the said award. Heard the leaned Government Pleader for R & B. Though notice was served upon the second respondent, she has not entered appearance. The petitioners made an attempt to deny the plea of the second respondent that she was employed with them. However, a perusal of the award discloses that the second respondent, who deposed as W.W.1, filed memo dated 18.08.1998, which is to the effect that the Executive Engineer, R & B, Kakinada, directed the Deputy Executive Engineer to pay an amount of Rs.500/- per month to the then petitioner, as salary. This would clinchingly establish the fact that the second respondent was engaged as a worker/Sweeper. The said arrangement remained for more than one year. Therefore, the petitioners could not have retrenched the second respondent except by complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Admittedly, the petitioners did not take any steps in that direction. Hence, no exception can be taken to the award passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement. The back wages were awarded as a consequential relief. Award of interest on such back wages is some what unknown, in matters of this nature. When the appointment of the second respondent was not through any specific written order, the Labour Court ought not to have gone to the extent of awarding interest, on back wages. While admitting the Writ Petition on 25.02.2002, this Court ordered interim suspension on condition that the petitioners shall pay the entire amount awarded towards back wages and permitted the second respondent to withdraw half of the deposited amount without furnishing any security. Compliance with Section 17-B of the Act was also directed. It is not known whether the second respondent has been gainfully employed over the period. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed modifying the impugned award to the effect that - (a) Interest awarded by the Labour Court upon the back wages is disallowed; (b) In case, the second respondent reports duty for reinstatement, the petitioners shall not be under obligation to pay difference of wages; and (c) The reinstatement shall be in the same capacity in which the second respondent worked before she came to be retrenched, subject to her rights, if any, which she may agitate before the forum concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 20th December 2010 RRB