THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.1047 OF 2009 ORDER: (As per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Aggrieved by the order made in W.P.No.26406 of 1999, dated 18.02.2009, whereby, the learned single Judge, modified the Award passed by the Labour Court ordering for dispensing with the services, if not required by the Corporation, the Appellant/workman preferred the present appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant was appointed as a cleaner with the Corporation on 21.08.1990. The appellant/workman filed an application in I.D.No.192 of 1994 and batch before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, along with other workmen whose concerns are the same as that of the appellant, on the ground that he was removed from service on 07.09.1993. The Labour Court while directing the Corporation to take the appellant as casual cleaner, also directed the Corporation to absorb the appellant as cleaner on permanent basis as and when the vacancies of cleaner arise. But, however, the Labour Court clarified that the appellant is not entitled for any continuity of service, attendant benefits and also back- wages on the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’. Challenging the said order, the Corporation moved W.P.No.26406 of 1999. 3. The learned single Judge while considering the matter, observed that, under Section2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the scope of the application is limited to consider whether the retrenchment attracts the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act or not, and there is no authority or jurisdiction for the Tribunal to direct for absorption of the appellant on permanent basis. It is also articulated that, as the appellant has chosen to work on casual basis as a Cleaner, no direction can be given either for his permanent absorption or regularization. Further, it is pointed out by the Corporation that, no advertisement was given inviting applications for filling up the vacancies of cleaner. However, the learned single Judge while setting aside that portion of the order of the Labour Court relating to absorption, partly allowed the writ petition and directed the Corporation that since, pursuant to the Award of the Tribunal, the appellant has already been reinstated, it is made clear that if his services are not required, it is always open for the Corporation to take steps to dispense with his services, in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned single Judge, the present writ appeal is preferred. 4. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances stated supra, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge has rightly modified the award to the extent that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction or authority to direct absorption of workmen into service. However, we deem it appropriate that the ends of justice would be met if the following direction in Writ Petition is set-aside, which is to the following effect: “…………….it is made clear that if the services of respondent are not required, it is always open for the petitioner-Corporation to take steps to dispense with his services, in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.” 5. Accordingly, with the above modification, the writ appeal is allowed in part. No costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J __________________________​______ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 5th December, 2011 sp THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.1047 OF 2009 5th December, 2011 sp