THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.6967 OF 1998 17TH FEBRUARY 2010. BETWEEN: THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SUB DIVISION RAYACHOTY, CUDDAPAH DISTRICT AND OTHERS .. PETITIONERS AND G.VENKATESU & ANOTHER .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.6967 OF 1998 O R D E R : The order under challenge in this writ petition is the award of the Labour Court, Anantapur in I.D.No.80 of 1995 dated 26-2-1997, whereby the petitioners were directed to reinstate the 1st respondent-workman into service with continuity of service but without backwages and attendant benefits. The 1st respondent filed a petition u/s 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act contending that he joined the service of petitioners herein in the year 1984 as an NMR watchman and continued in service for more than 240 days in a calendar year; he worked for more than ten years; and respondents had dispensed with his services without notice and without compliance of the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In their rejoinder, the petitioners herein stated that the 1st respondent was not a workman; they were not an industry; the 1st respondent was never engaged as an NMR watchman; he may have been engaged by the concerned Assistant Engineer to watch the cement godown on daily wage basis whenever there was stock; even if he was engaged by the concerned Assistant Engineer it was in his personal capacity; there was no post sanctioned either by the Government or any of the respondents; appointment of the 1st respondent was neither sanctioned nor ratified by the Government; and under GO.Ms.No.287, dated 7.9.1983 there was a ban on recruitment of NMR. The Tribunal, on a detailed analysis of the evidence on record, held that the petitioner establishment was an industry and the 1st respondent was a workman thereat; MW.1 admitted that the 1st respondent worked under the Assistant Engineer; he also admitted that wages were paid to the 1st respondent from the imprest from time to time on hand receipt basis; the 1st respondent had served in his official capacity only and as such became the employer of the petitioners herein; MW.1 admitted that the 1st respondent workman served for more than 240 days in a calendar year and also from 1987 to 1991 on hand receipt basis; this showed that the 1st respondent- workman was engaged even prior to the ban on recruitment and any order directing his reinstatement would not fall foul of the government order. The Tribunal further noted that in Ex.W-1 the 1st petitioner herein had recommended to the 2nd petitioner that the respondent’s services be regularised and, in such circumstances, termination of the 1st respondent- workman was not justified and was liable to be set aside. However, since the 1st respondent-workman did not state in his claim statement that he could not secure alternate employment, the Tribunal held that he was not entitled for monetary benefits. Learned Government Pleader for Irrigation vehemently contends that the 1st respondent-workman was engaged by the Assistant Engineer in his personal capacity; appointment of the 1st respondent was not against a sanctioned post; and he could not have been appointed to such a post. It is not in dispute nor could it have been disputed that the petitioner’s establishment was an industry and that the 1st respondent-workman was engaged as an NMR-watchman. It is evident from the evidence on record that M.W.1 himself admits that the 1st respondent- workman had worked as an NMR watchman at the godown of the petitioner established for nearly a decade, initially for a period of five years as an NMR and the subsequent five years on hand receipt basis. Since the services of the 1st respondent- workman was admittedly terminated without notice, it is in violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act and such termination is void ab initio. Consequently, the 1st respondent-workman would be entitled to be reinstated into the same post in which he was working earlier i.e. NMR watchman. The Tribunal merely directed such reinstatement with the benefit of continuity of service and denied backwages and attendant benefits. The award of the Tribunal does not necessitate interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it does not suffer from any patent illegality or perversity. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ______________________________ ( RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J ) 17th February, 2010. Tnb THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.6967 OF 1998 17TH FEBRUARY 2010.