IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.17273, 17277 & 11908 of 2003 BETWEEN: W.P. No.17273 of 2003 The District Malaria Officer and another … Petitioners and S.Narasimha … Respondent W.P. No.17277of 2003 The District Malaria Officer and another … Petitioners and Srinivas … Respondent W.P. No.11908 of 2003 The District Malaria Officer and another … Petitioners and Biksham … Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.17273, 17277 & 11908 of 2003 COMMON ORDER: This batch of writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, District Malaria Officer, Nalgonda District and the District Medical & Health Officer, Nalgonda, seeking for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 18.03.2000 passed in I.D. No.266, 268 and 267 of 1996 by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-III, Hyderabad and to quash the same. The writ petitioners in the batch of writ petitions is the one and the same and the respondents are the different workmen, in each writ petition, working under the petitioners management. As the common issue is involved for consideration in this batch of writ petitions, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. Brief facts of the case are that the workmen raised industrial dispute vide I.D. No.266, 268 and 267 of 1996 under Section 2A(2) of the (A.P. Amendment Act 32 of 87) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, Hyderabad seeking to reinstate them into service with continuity of service and back wages. The contention of the workmen was that they joined in the service of the petitioners’ management through employment exchange and reported for duty as Field worker on 01.09.1991, 01.10.1991 and 01.06.1984, respectively. From 01.07.1995, 01.07.1995 and 01.01.1994, respectively, their services were terminated orally by the petitioners’ management without issuing any notice and the petitioners’ management did not follow the procedure as laid down under Section 25-F of the Act, before their termination from service. Therefore, they raised industrial dispute vide different I.D. Nos. as stated hereinabove. The contention of the petitioners was that the workmen were engaged on daily wage basis to work in DDT/BHC spraying. The workmen had worked only for a total period of 173, 176 and 33 days respectively, in different spells, and they have not worked for 240 days in a calendar year. It was further contention that the workmen were not issued with any termination orders, therefore, the question of their reinstatement into service with consequential benefits does not arise. Having regard to the pleas taken by both the parties before the Labour Court, the Labour Court passed the impugned award directing the petitioners’ department to reinstate the workmen into service on daily wage basis with continuity of service denying the back wages. Assailing the same, the petitioners’ department filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the workmen would submit that this batch of writ petitions are relating to some more batch of writ petitions, which are similar to the present batch of writ petitions. Similar batch of writ petitions were already dismissed recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the workmen therein that by virtue of the award passed by the Labour Court, the workmen therein were reinstated into service and they are continuing in service and regularized their services in terms of the G.O.Ms. No.212/Fin. & Plg (PC-III), dated 22.04.1994. He further submitted that the only difference between the batch of writ petitions already dismissed with the present batch of writ petitions is that the workmen therein were regularized and wherein, the workmen in the present batch of writ petitions are not regularized but are reinstated and continuing in service. He also submitted that as the workmen were not paid any wages from the date of passing of the award till the date of reinstatement, the workmen filed execution petition before the Labour Court and the same was ordered, pursuant to which, half of the wages have been paid. At this stage, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. The claim of the workmen was that they were engaged as field worker on daily wage basis for spraying DDT and they have worked continuously from September, 1991 to the end of June, 1995, 1991 to June, 1995 and 01.06.1984 to December, 1993, respectively. To substantiate their claim in respect of their working period, they themselves were examined as WW-1 and denied the number of working days stated by the petitioner that they had worked only for a period of 173, 176 and 33 days, respectively. From a perusal of the impugned award, it is evident that the petitioners had stated the number of working days of the workmen on the basis of the office records but failed to produce those records. Therefore, there is a lapse on the part of the petitioners for non- production of the records though they claimed that they have stated the number of working days of the workmen based on the office records. In the absence of any record with regard to the number of working days of the workmen, the Labour Court had rightly drew the adverse inference against the petitioners that the workmen had worked for more than 240 days. Further, the petitioners did not follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 25-F of the Act before termination of the workmen from the service. Under those circumstances, it can be held that the Labour Court did not commit any error in passing the impugned award and the same is liable to be confirmed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, the impugned award dated 18.03.2000 is confirmed and these writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, as the learned counsel for the workmen categorically submitted that though the workmen herein were reinstated and continuing in service, their services have not been regularized in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.212/Fin. & Plg (PC-III), dated 22.04.1994, on par with similarly situated workmen, whose services were regularized in terms of the said G.O. The reasons have not been put forth by the petitioners before this Court for not extending the similar benefit of regularization on par with similarly situated workmen. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to direct the petitioners to extend the similar benefit of regularization to the workmen herein, on par with similarly situated workmen, if they are otherwise eligible. Further, it is also made clear that the workmen herein are not entitled to any other relief, with regard to payment of wages, except the money already received by them. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 29.07.2011 LSK