THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.20430 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the award, dated 05.12.1994, made by the Labour Court, Guntur, in I.D.No.395 of 1989, whereunder the application filed by the petitioner under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) was dismissed without granting any relief, holding that the very application filed under Section 2-A (2) of the Act by the petitioner was not maintainable since he was a part-time employee. The second respondent-Management has not filed any writ petition challenging the findings recorded against it by the Labour Court holding that the termination of the petitioner without conducting any enquiry was arbitrary and illegal, apart from the fact that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were also violated. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Labour Court ought not to have dismissed the application on the ground that application under Section 2-A(2) of the Act is not maintainable by the petitioner since he was only a part-time employee, whereas learned counsel appearing for the second respondent- Management has strenuously contended that the very writ petition is not maintainable since the petitioner has approached this Court with a delay of more than ten years. Thus, the only question that falls for consideration is whether an application under Section 2-A (2) of the Act is maintainable by the petitioner or not? The fact that the petitioner was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act is not in dispute. Further, the fact that the petitioner was engaged for more than 240 days continuously in a calendar year is also not denied. In fact, the Labour Court recorded a finding that no explanation has been called for by the second respondent-Management from the petitioner for the alleged unauthorised absence, no charge was framed, no enquiry was conducted and absolutely there was no material to conclude that the petitioner was irregular to his duties and hence, held that the removal of the petitioner from service by the second respondent-management is not justified. The law in this regard is well settled. Even a part- time employee is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act and therefore, the petitioner can maintain an application under Section 2-A (2) of the Act and as such, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, dismissing the application on the ground that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 2-A (2) of the Act as not maintainable, is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. Admittedly, the award was passed in the year 1994, whereas the writ petition was filed in the year 2006. It is true that there was some delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court by way of filing the writ petition challenging the award pass by the Labour Court and hence, the petitioner can be denied back-wages and attendant benefits etc. Under those circumstances, the impugned award, dated 05.12.1994, passed by the Labour Court to the extent of holding that the petitioner cannot maintain a petition under Section 2-A(2) of the Act is set aside and in the result, the impugned award is modified to be read as:- “The termination of the workman is held to be arbitrary and illegal and the workman is entitled for reinstatement into service without continuity of service and without back-wages and attendant benefits i.e., the workman is entitled for fresh appointment as Attender in the office of the second respondent.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU 2nd June 2010 dr