THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 586 of 2003 Dated: 17-2-2010 Between: Kondapalli Ramakrishna and others …Petitioner and The Municipal Commissioner, Repalle Municipality, Repalle, Guntur Dist. and others …Respondents Oral order: This writ petition has been instituted by five individuals who are said to be employed on Non-Muster Roll (NMRs) basis with the Repalle Municipality, Repalle in Guntur District. They sought a writ of Mandamus for declaring the proceedings bearing No. 13253/2002/M2- 2, dated 24-7-2002 and proceedings bearing No. 13253/2002/M2 dated 13-9-2002 issued by the Director of Municipal Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh as bad in law and also violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. By the aforesaid proceedings the 2nd respondent directed the 1st respondent to terminate the services of the petitioners. In the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, it is asserted that all the petitioners are appointed as NMRs on 13-7-1990 on daily wage basis in Repalle Municipality and that they were paid Rs.900/- per month. It was further asserted that they worked as such till 16-11-1994, when, all of a sudden, the Commissioner of Repalle Municipality orally instructed them not to attend the duty. In those set of circumstances, the petitioners have raised Industrial Disputes bearing I.D.Nos. 69, 70, 71, 72 and 73 of 1995 before the Labour Court, Guntur. The Labour Court, Guntur by its award dated 19-10-2001 found the termination of services of the writ petitioners herein as in contravention of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’) and consequently declared the oral termination of services of the writ petitioners as bad in law and directed their reinstatement with continuity of service and with full back wages. Reacting to this award passed by the Labour Court in the aforementioned I.Ds. on 19-10-2001, the Director of Municipal Administration has passed orders through the aforesaid proceedings dated 24-7-2002 and 13-9-2002. By a mere look at these two proceedings, it will be instantly clear that the Director of Municipal Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad was in turn responding to a communication received from the Municipal Commissioner, Repalle, in the first instance on 24-7-2002 and on the second occasion in response to the communication dated 19-8-2002. It will be significant to note from both these proceedings that the Director of Municipal Administration in no unmistakable terms directed the Municipal Commissioner, Repalle Municipality to reinstate the workmen into service in accordance with the award passed by the Labour Court, Guntur. However, learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Krishnaiah would strenuously submit that the subsequent portion contained in the two communications sent up by the Director of Municipal Administration would amount to directing the Repalle Municipality to dispense with the services of the writ petitioners without making any proper assessment as to the manpower required and in view of this impression gained by the writ petitioners, they solicited this writ of Mandamus. Let us look at those two proceedings, which were the subject matter of challenge before this Court dated 24-7-2002 and 13-9-2002. What was objected to therein, perhaps could be this: “…..and request you to dispense with the services after reinstatement of Sri K.Ramakrishna and 4 others of Repalle Municipality duly following the procedure laid down in the I.D.Act, 1947 on the ground that if there is no work for them.” “In this connection, I have to inform that in view of the orders of Government issued in their Memo No. 25897/2000-5, M.A., dt. 11- 9-2001 while referring Government Memo No. 2589/G2/2000-5, M.A., dt. 11-9-2001, I request you to take action as ordered in the said Government Memos i.e., first reinstatement them to duty and afterwards dispense with the services duly following the procedure laid down in the I.D.Act-1947 and intimate the action taken.” The learned counsel for the petitioners is right in his submission that the Repalle Municipality being a body corporate is the principal employer. It is for the principal employer to make an assessment as to the requirement of it’s manpower. If the Repalle Municipality considers that for discharging the various functions, for which it has been created, it requires the necessary manpower and within those parameters if the services of the writ petitioners are required to be continued, their services cannot be dispensed with either by disengaging or otherwise. The two communications sent by the Director of Municipal Administration, therefore have got to be understood as merely advisory, in the context of the Repalle Municipality finding no such requirement of manpower. It is apt to notice that these two communications are sent up by the Director in response to two letters received from the Repalle Municipality. The Director of Municipal Administration cannot be understood to have given a blanket direction to the Repalle Municipality to invariably dispense with the services of the writ petitioners, irrespective of the fact whether the manpower requirement justifies it or not. The directives issued by the Director of Municipal Administration are intended to ensure that the Repalle Municipality will not commit the same error which it has committed on the previous occasion while terminating the services of the writ petitioners in having not followed the principles of law, in particular, those enshrined under Section 25F of the Act. It is needless for one to emphasise the necessity to follow the principles of law, particularly those which are required to be compulsorily followed, such as those specified in Section 25F of the Act before the services of any workmen are terminated, which might amount to retrenchment within the meaning of the said expression under Section 2(oo) of the Act. It is a settled principle of law that termination of employment of any workmen for whatever be the reason, amounts to retrenchment and any such retrenchment of workmen without complying with the principles of law enunciated under Section 25F of the Act, results in declaration of such termination as bad in law and also ends up in reinstatement of such workmen with the necessary follow up benefits. That is exactly what has happened on the last occasion requiring the intervention by the Labour Court, Guntur in the Industrial Disputes raised by these petitioners. Therefore, the communications sent up by the Director of Municipal Administration have got to be understood in the context in which they are placed. These two communications cannot be divested of the context and no attempt should be made to read in between the lines. When properly understood, the directives of the Director of Municipal Administration to the Repalle Municipality contained in both these communications is clear and loud. In that, the Repalle Municipality is directed to first of all reinstate all those workmen strictly in accordance with the award passed by the Labour Court. No exception can be drawn thereto. The later portion, which were already noticed supra, is only a caveat, drawing the attention of the Municipal Commissioner of Repalle Municipality to the necessity of the obligation to comply with the principles of law enunciated under Section 25F of the Act, in case any necessity to dispense with the services of the writ petitioners arises. It is for the Municipality to make an assessment as to the manpower required. If the Repalle Municipality were to come to a conclusion that for discharging its duties and responsibilities towards its residents, the manpower engaged by it is sufficient or inadequate, the question of dispensing with the services of the writ petitioners would not normally arise. On the other hand, keeping in view its limited financial resources, if the Repalle Municipality is not in a position to engage so many employees on its rolls and spend all its revenues only towards the salary bills on the human resources instead of proportionately spending on civic amenities or for undertaking any additions to the existing infrastructure and maintaining the same, it is certainly open to the Repalle Municipality to take an appropriate decision in that regard. Being a body corporate, any such decision has got to be taken in accordance with the principles contained in the Municipalities Act. Only, in the event the said body corporate arrives at a conclusion to dispense with the services of any of its excessive human resources, the directives of the Director of Municipal Administration, acquires significance requiring them to follow the principles of law enunciated in the Industrial Disputes Act, which includes, apart from the contour of Section 25F of the Act, the principle of last come must go first as well. Therefore, viewed from this perspective, the directives issued by the Director of Municipal Administration cannot be faulted. I have no doubt in my mind that the Repalle Municipality will take an appropriate decision based upon all the relevant material and give effect to the same strictly by adhering to the principles enunciated in the Industrial Disputes Act, but not otherwise. Therefore, the wit petition stands disposed of with this observation. No costs. __________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 17th February, 2010 GRR