IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.1084 OF 2002 Between: The Sub-Divisional Officer Phones Nagar Kurnool & Anr. …. Appellants V/s. D.Sankaraiah Goud &Anr. …. Respondents Counsel for the appellants: Sri R. S. Murthy Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Labour Sri C.Suryanarayana THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO. 1084 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao) The appellants herein who are the Sub-Divisional Officer Phones, Nagarkurnool and Telecom District Manager, Mahaboobnagar, inter alia seeking to assail the order dated 07-2- 2002 passed in WP.No. 12185 of 1996 in allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No.1. 2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present writ appeal are that the respondent no.1 writ petitioner had raised a dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act in regard to the orders of termination of his services w.e.f. 16-10-1989. Accordingly it is taken up as I.D.No.68, 69 and 71 of 1991 on the file of Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad. The case of the writ petitioner is that he worked for more than 240 days but only 227 days was taken into consideration and therefore he did not come within the parameter of workmen and as such the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act have no application and can he claim compensation thereunder. 3. During the course of enquiry MW-1 was examined on behalf of the respondent. No documents were marked on its side. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of thepetitioner-workmen. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence available on record held that since the respondent employee worked continuously for 227 days, it is therefore, his termination is purported to be valid. Hence, it was held that the management is justified in terminating the services of the respondent No.1 writ petitioner w.e.f. 16-10-1989 and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief. 4. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. The said writ petition was taken up along with connected writ petitions. The learned single Judge taken into consideration the submission made across the bar had held that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days and the writ petition was disposed of and remanded the matter to the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad for disposal. Hence, the writ appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants strenuously submitted that the respondent No.1 workman had not worked for 240 days in fact he worked for only 227 days but the learned single Judge erroneously held that the respondent No.1 workman worked for more than 240 days, which is not correct. Hence, the order is liable to be set aside. 6. Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is seen no doubt that there appears categorical findings by the Industrial Tribunal basing upon the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent No.1 that the respondent No.1 had worked only for 227 days. However, it is seen from the record that no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the respondent-workman in rebuttal nor any documents has been marked in support thereof. In view of the same de horse, t he learned Judge remanded the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for affording fresh opportunity to the respondent No.1 writ petitioner workman and also to the Management for letting in necessary evidence in this regard and dispose of the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Now we are also of the opinion that an opportunity should be given to the respondent No.1 workman herein to let-in both oral and documentary evidence for proper adjudication of the matter. Hence, we do not find any error in the order of remand passed by the learned single Judge. However, we make it clear that it is open for the Industrial Tribunal to consider the case of the respondent No.1 writ petitioner on merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to both sides and dispose of the same within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 7. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE B . PRAKASH RAO ________________________________________ JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD 13-07-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No. 1084 OF 2002 JUDGMENT of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon'ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao Circulation Entry No. Date: 13-07-2010 COMPUTER No. 43 Court Master: I s L