IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 845 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 12/09/2006 in WP NO : 8981 OF 1995 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Secretary, Waltair Club, Visakhapatnam - 3. Correct description is: Waltair Club, Visakhapatnam - 3. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, rep. by its Presiding Officer, Visakhapatnam. 2 N. Kasi Viswanadham S/o. Late Satyanarayana Murthy C/o. L.V.S. Raghava Rao D.No. 49-39-1, N.G.O.'s Colony, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.G.RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: K.R. Srinivas The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.845 of 2009 Oral Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The Waltair Club, Visakhapatnam, the Petitioner in the Writ Petition, filed this Writ Appeal aggrieved by the Order dated 12.9.2006 passed by the learned single Judge in only partly allowing Writ Petition No. 8981 of 1995. The 2nd Respondent in this appeal filed I.D. No. 1 of 1992 before the Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam alleging that he was terminated from service by the Appellant without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). The Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam by Award dated 4.1.1995 held in his favour and directed his reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service. The same was challenged by the Appellant in the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge, took note of the fact that the Appellant, while terminating the services of the 2nd Respondent-Workman with effect from 14.10.1991, requested him to contact the Office for receiving the terminal benefits, notice pay etc. However, the learned judge thereafter rightly held that the same does not absolve the Management of the obligation cast upon it by Section 25-F of the Act and therefore, the termination from service of the 2nd Respondent-Workman is not in accordance with law. As the 2nd Respondent-Workman did not respond to the correspondence by the Appellant with regard to his reinstatement into service pursuant to the Award of the Labour Court, the learned single Judge modified the Award of the Labour Court by directing the Appellant to pay compensation equivalent to three years salary to the 2nd Respondent-Workman. In this appeal, the Appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as a condition precedent for considering the application with regard to condonation of the delay in the filing of the Appeal. The order dated 13.8.2007 passed by this Court in this regard makes it clear that this amount was to be paid to the 2nd Respondent-Workman irrespective of the result of the condone delay application. Having heard Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri K.R. Srinivas, learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent-Workman, we are of the opinion that the record supports the finding of the learned single judge that there was violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act in so far as the termination of the 2nd Respondent-workman’s services are concerned. We therefore do not see any reason to disagree with the order of the learned Judge. We are of the further opinion that it would suffice to direct the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the 2nd Respondent-Workman towards compensation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This amount would roughly be equivalent to the amount directed to be paid by the learned single Judge. This amount will be in addition to the sum of Rs. 10,000/-, which has already been deposited by the Appellant, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 13.8.2007. The 2nd Respondent-Workman is at liberty to withdraw the sum of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by the Appellant in pursuance of the Order dated 13.8.2007 in W.A.M.P. No. 189 of 2007 in Writ Appeal No. 845 of 2009. The Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 26th June, 2009 _________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J pnb