HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL No.1327 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: (Per the Honourable Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) This Writ Appeal is filed against the common order of the learned Single Judge passed on 24-10-2002 in W.P. No.13776 of 2000 along with W.P. No.8164 of 1999. 2. Appellant filed Writ Petition No.13776 of 2000, the order of which is challenged herein, challenging the award order dated 08-12-1998 passed in I.D. No.30 of 1993 by the Labour Court, whereunder and whereby reinstatement of the workman i.e. the appellant herein, as fresher was directed, denying all the benefits to him. Respondents also filed W.P. No.8164 of 1999 challenging the same award on different grounds. 3. The learned single Judge observing that the question of regularization of services of the petitioner does not arise now, inasmuch as the Labour Court having gone into the facts and circumstance of the case, came to the conclusion that the Management has not strictly adhered to the provisions of Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short ‘the Act’) directed the respondents to engage the appellant as a fresher and that this Court cannot reappraise the evidence on record since the Labour Court as a finding authority has gone into all the questions of facts while passing the award, dismissed both the writ petitions. However, in view of the fact that the W.P. No.8164 of 1999 and also since the workman – appellant was not in service, the learned single Judge directed the respondents Corporation to reinstate the workman – appellant within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order and to pay wages from the said date of appointment. Aggrieved by the same, this writ appeal is filed by the appellant. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that when the termination of the appellant is in violation of Section 25 (F) of the Act, he is entitled for all the benefits like re-instatement, continuity of service and full back wages and that with regard to the same, no finding has been given either by the Labour Court or by the learned single Judge of this Court. He further contended that some other persons, who were juniors to the appellant, are regularized and that one P. Venugopal who was also terminated along with the appellant, also re-instated and regularized without any orders of the Court and that the petitioner is also entitled for regularization of the services, continuity of service and back- wages. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents Corporation that the appellant is not entitled for continuity of service and back- wages. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides and having perused the order of the learned single Judge and also in view of the fact that the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge directed the respondents Corporation to treat the appellant as a fresher, we are of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge can be modified to the effect that the appellant can be reinstated into service with continuity of service but, without any back-wages. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. The order of the learned single Judge dated 24-10-2002 passed in W.P. Nos.8164 of 1999 and 13776 of 2000 is modified and it is directed that the respondents Corporation shall reinstate the appellant into service with continuity of service, however, without any back-wages. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J September 29, 2010. __________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J KTL