IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18714 of 1999 Between: D.Kishan S/o.Mallaiah, R/o.6-3-709/A-5, Punjagutta, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer Labour Court - 1 Hyderabad. 2 The General Manager (Administration) Co-oporation Bank, Head Office: Mangaladevi Temple Road, Mangalore 575 001. 3 The Regional Manager Regional Officer, Siddiambar Bazar, Co-oporation Office, Hyderabad. .....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 an order direction or Writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ calling for the records from the Labour Court-1 in I.D.NO.34/96 quash the award and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with back wages and other attendant benefits by setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court-1 in I.D.No.34/96 and pass such further or other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who worked as a Car Driver of one of the respondent’s Corporation Bank, challenging the validity of the award dated 22.12.1998 passed in I.D.No.34 of 1996 by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the act’) before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. It was his case before the Tribunal that he was appointed as a Car driver on 16.9.1985 by the respondent-bank on a monthly salary of Rs.650/- per month and he has worked as such for a period of 5 years. It was his further case that when he submitted a representation to appoint him as a member of the Sub-staff, his services were retrenched without following the provisions of the Act. The respondent-bank have filed a counter-affidavit disputing the very employment of the petitioner with the respondent-bank. It was the respondents’ case that the petitioner was appointed as a personal driver Manager by the Senior Branch Manager and he was not appointed by the bank at any time. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner-workman was examined as WW.1 and Exs.W.1 to W.15 were marked. On behalf of the respondent-bank, the Officers were examined as MW.1 and 2 and no documentary evidence was adduced. While considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal below, by the impugned award dated 22.12.1998, rejected the claim of the petitioner. Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed by the bank and as much as he was appointed on consolidated pay, there was no need to seek requisition from the employment exchange. It is submitted that as much as he has rendered service to the bank, he has to be treated as an employee of the bank and as his services were retrenched, in spite of completing five years of service, without following the due provisions under the Act, the Tribunal ought to have ordered for reinstatement. It is to be noted that on behalf of the petitioner, except him, no other witness was examined to support his case. On the other hand, the Senior Manager of the Bank was examined as MW.1, who deposed before the Tribunal that he appointed the petitioner as his personal driver to drive his Car. It was stated that the bank has provided a Car for his official and private purpose and as he was not knowing driving, he engaged the petitioner to drive the said vehicle. Even in the letter, dated 09.11.1990 addressed by the petitioner, which was marked under Ex.W.7, in which a request was made to appoint as a member of the Sub-staff, the petitioner has categorically mentioned that he has been working as a personal car driver of an Officer by name V.Venkat Rao. Though the petitioner has sought to rely on Exs.W.7 and W.8, the contents of the said documents no way improve the case of the petitioner. When they very appointment of the petitioner is not by the bank and when it was disputed in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, the petitioner did not discharge the initial burden to prove the employer and employee relationship. As much as there is no material on record to show that he was appointed by the bank, he cannot seek any directions for reinstatement on the ground that his retrenchment was in violation of the provisions of the 25 of the Act. From the very contents of the letter under Ex.W.7, it is clear that he was appointed as a personal car driver of the Senior Branch Manager and he was never appointed to the bank service. In the circumstances, the Tribunal below, correctly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, rejected the application filed by the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any grounds so as to give to a different conclusion than the one arrived by the Industrial Tribunal. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 22nd January, 2009 PNV