IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 14169 of 1999 Between: The Commissioner, Kakinada Municipality, Kakinada, East Godavari. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. 2 Sri Vanumu Satynarayana, H/o 16-42-59/1, Indira Colony, Sambamurthy Nagar, Beach Road, Kakinada, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the Nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the Award passed in I.D.NO.507/95 by the learned Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court ,Visakhapatnam as published through G.O.Rt.NO.1264, Labour Employment, Training & Factories (LAB.I) Department dt.23/7/98 and set aside the same holding it bad in law and unsustainable and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.14169 of 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against an award made in I.D.No.507 of 1995, dated 21.5.1998 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. Petitioner is the Management. 2nd respondent is the workman. It appears that 2nd respondent was appointed on 20th July, 1983 as NMR on daily wage and continued as such till 15.4.1989. It appears that on 16.4.1989 he was arrested and detained by the police in connection with his involvement in a murder case i.e., under Section 302 IPC. In view of his involvement in murder case, he was discharged from service. Aggrieved thereby, 2nd respondent raised a dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Act before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D.No.507 of 1995 stating that the termination from service is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Section 25- F of the Act since he was acquitted in the criminal case in S.C.No.304 of 1989 dated 24.09.1990. It was the case of 2nd respondent that even before the trial commenced in the criminal case, he was discharged from service and though he was enlarged on bail and reported for duty, he was not permitted to join duty. Thus, 2nd respondent was retrenched from service without following due process of law. Neither any enquiry was conducted nor the procedure as required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) was followed. Therefore, the question of terminating the service of 2nd respondent does not arise and the same was arbitrary and illegal. A detailed counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner-Management stating that the very petition under Section 2-A (2) of the Act was not maintainable since 2nd respondent was only a daily wage employee and further the question of following any procedure as required under the law or invoking the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act does not arise. On behalf of 2nd respondent-workman, he examined himself as WW1 and documents Exs.W1 to W4 were marked. On behalf of petitioner-Management, MW1 was examined and documents Ex.M1 was marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the labour Court came to the conclusion that there was violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act and as such directed the Management to reinstate 2nd respondent-workman into service with 25% back wages. Aggrieved thereby, Kakinada Municipality, Kakinada filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that 2nd respondent was only a daily wage employee, therefore, neither he can maintain a petition under Section 2-A (2) of the Act nor there is any necessity for invoking the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act as pleaded by the workman for his discharge from duties. Since he was involved in a murder case under Section 302 IPC, there was no necessity of further conducting any enquiry or his acquittal in the criminal case has any bearing on the termination of his services. Whereas, Mr. P.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent supported the award passed by the labour Court and contended that he was not a daily wage employee and was a regular employee since he was continued for more than 7 years and his services could not have been discharged without following either the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Act or by initiating any disciplinary proceedings if any necessary. No such procedure was followed by the petitioner- Management. The discharge of the workman was utter violation of principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned award was either arbitrary or illegal and requires interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. The facts are not much in dispute. The services of 2nd respondent-workman were dis-engaged and he was not allowed to join duty immediately after his enlargement on bail in the criminal case, being S.C.No.304 of 1989, under Section 302 IPC. This definitely amounts to illegal termination of 2nd respondent-workman since no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him nor he was convicted by criminal court. In fact, the said criminal case ended in acquittal on 24.9.1990 and attained finality. Therefore, looking from any angle, discharge of 2nd respondent from service is nothing but illegal retrenchment since such retrenchment does not satisfy the requirements of Section 25-F of the Act. Therefore, the labour Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the termination of 2nd respondent- workman was bad in law and directing petitioner-Management to reinstate 2nd respondent-workman with continuity of service with 25% of the back wages. It cannot be said that labour Court has committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ___________ 25-04-2008 rkk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. 2. 2CD copies