THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION Nos.14480 of 2006 and 4525 of 2005 Date: 14.02.2011 W.P.No.14480 of 2006 : Between: The Executive Engineer, Drainage Sub-Division, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District and others. … Petitioners And B. Krishna Murthy and another. … Respondents W.P.No.4525 of 2005 : Between: The Executive Engineer, Drainage Sub-Division, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District and others. … Petitioners And B. Krishna Murthy and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION Nos.14480 of 2006 and 4525 of 2005 COMMON ORDER : Since the subject matter and the parties in both the writ petitions are one and the same, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. W.P.No.14480 of 2006 is directed against the Award dated 15.9.2001 made in I.D.No.254 of 1996 on the file of the Labour Court- cum-Industrial Tribunal, Guntur, whereunder the application filed under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity “the Act”) questioning the oral termination of the 1st respondent-workman from service on 1.9.1987, was allowed with a direction to the petitioner-management to reinstate the 1st respondent-workman into service with continuity of service, but without back wages. 3. The petitioners are the management and the 1st respondent is the workman. 4. It appears that the 1st respondent-workman was appointed as workman on 1.8.1984 at Sub-Divisional Office of Irrigation Department at Bhimavaram, West Godavari District and continuously worked there upto 31.8.1987. However, his services were orally terminated with effect from 1.9.1987. Therefore, he raised a dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Act in I.D.No.254 of 1996 before the Labour Court, Guntur. The petitioner-management filed a detailed counter and contested the matter. However, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent-workman had put in more than 240 days of continuous service preceding the date of termination and, as such, found that the petitioner-management failed to follow the procedure as required under Section 25(F) of the Act and accordingly passed award dated 15.9.2001, directing for reinstatement of the 1st respondent-workman into service with continuity of service, but without back wages, in view of the fact that the 1st respondent-workman approached the Labour Court with a delay of 9 years. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner- management has filed the present writ petition. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Irrigation appearing for the petitioner-management strenuously contended that absolutely there was no evidence to show that the 1st respondent-workman worked for 240 days continuously for the purpose of following the procedure prescribed under Section 25(F) of the Act. He also contended that even otherwise, the 1st respondent-workman does not deserve for any relief, since the I.D. itself was raised after more than 8 years. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-workman sought to sustain the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and stated that though I.D.No.254 of 1996 was disposed of on 15.9.2001, the present writ petition has been filed in the year 2006 i.e., after a lapse of more than five years and hence on this ground alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He also contended that, in fact, this writ petition was filed after filing of W.P.No.4525 of 2005, challenging the order, dated 1.3.2005, in E.P.No.6 of 2003 in I.D.No.254 of 1996 passed by the Labour Court for arrest of the petitioner-management for non-implementation of the Award in I.D.No.254 of 1996, dated 15.9.2001. Therefore, even on this ground also the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. So far as the fact that the 1st respondent-workman had completed 240 days of continuous service in the petitioner- management is concerned, there is any amount of evidence let in by the 1st respondent-workman before the Labour Court. The fact that the 1st respondent-workman worked from 1.8.1984 to 31.8.1987 is not specifically denied. Therefore, it must be deemed that the Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner- management has not complied with the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act, even though the 1st respondent-workman had put in more than 240 days of continuous service preceding the date of his termination. May be, there was some delay on the part of the 1st respondent- workman in approaching the Labour Court, but the Labour Court, while allowing the application filed by him under Section 2-A (2) of the Act, has completely denied the back wages for all the years right from the date of termination till the date of his reinstatement into service. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error in allowing the application filed by the 1st respondent- workman warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. For the foregoing, W.P.No.14480 of 2006 is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. 9. In view of dismissal of the above writ petition, W.P.No.4525 of 2005 also stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 14.02.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION Nos.14480 of 2006 and 4525 of 2005 14.02.2011 (Msr)