IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:19318 of 1999 Between: K.Laxminarsaiah ..... PETITIONER AND The Labour Court-II and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the respondents:GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash award, dated 01.04.1997 passed in I.D.No.214 of 1993 to the extent of denying back wages and directing reinstatement of the petitioner as a fresh candidate. The petitioner, who was a daily wage labourer with respondent Nos.2 to 4, raised an industrial dispute following his retrenchment. Respondent No.1, who entertained and disposed of the dispute registered as I.D.No.214 of 1993 (I.D.No.221/90 (old)), on an analysis of the material available before it, held that the petitioner had worked for a continuous period of 240 days and his services were terminated without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). However, respondent No.1 while holding that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service, very curiously, further held that he is entitled to reinstatement as a fresh candidate. The direction given by respondent No.1 to reinstate the petitioner as a fresh candidate is in conflict with his own reasoning and observation that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service. Therefore, the order to the extent of directing the petitioner’s reinstatement as a fresh candidate cannot be sustained and is accordingly, set aside. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed for payment of back wages, in my considered view, respondent No.1 applied its mind and exercised its discretion against granting such a relief. Having regard to the facts of this case, I am of the view that the award to that extent does not require interference by this Court. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed in part and the direction given by respondent No.1 to the extent of petitioner’s reinstatement as a fresh candidate is set aside. The petitioner shall be deemed to have been reinstated with continuity of service without back wages. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 31st DECEMBER, 2008. kvni