THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.17610 OF 2000 DATED 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2011 BETWEEN The Executive Engineer, R&B Division, Khammam and another. …Petitioners And The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, Represented by its Chairman and Presiding Officer and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.17610 OF 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the Officers of the Roads and Buildings (R&B) Department of the State assailing the common Award dated 17.02.2000 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, in so far as it pertained to I.D.No.92 of 1995. The said I.D. arose out of a reference by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1947’). The dispute referred was as under: “Whether the Executive Engineer, R&B Division, Khammam, is justified in not regularizing the services of Sri G.Murali Krishna, NMR and terminating his services during the pendency of conciliation proceedings? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?” By the Award under challenge, the Tribunal answered the reference by directing reinstatement of G.Murali Krishna, NMR, the second respondent in the writ petition, in service as a Gangman and regularization of his services upon completion of one year from the date of reinstatement, giving effect to such regularization from the date of his initial appointment on 01.04.1987. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition. The second respondent claimed that he was appointed as a Gangman under the control of the R&B Department of the State on 01.04.1987 and that he was orally terminated from service on 01.08.1994 without following the provisions of the Act of 1947. This termination from service was effected during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings initiated in connection with his claim for regularization in service. In so far as the dispute as to his regularization is concerned, the Government of Andhra Pradesh referred the same to the Tribunal under Section 10(1)(d) of the Act of 1947 which was taken on file as I.D.No.92 of 1995. Aggrieved by his alleged illegal termination from service, the second respondent raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Act of 1947 which was taken on file as I.D.No.85 of 1995. By the common Award dated 17.02.2000 rendered in these two I.Ds., the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Warangal, set aside the impugned oral termination from service and directed reinstatement of the second respondent in service as a Gangman with continuity of service and back wages. In so far as the subject reference was concerned, the Tribunal directed that after such reinstatement and upon completion of one year in service, the second respondent was entitled to be regularized in service with effect from the date of his initial appointment on 01.04.1987. Perusal of the common Award reflects that the Tribunal found on evidence that the second respondent was appointed as a Gangman on NMR basis in the R&B Department on oral orders on 01.04.1987 and that he worked continuously till 01.08.1994, when he was orally terminated from service. It drew an adverse inference from the failure on the part of the R&B Department in producing the muster rolls and advance payment registers despite its orders to do so. In so far as the aspect of regularization is concerned, it was the claim of the second respondent that his juniors in service had been regularized but he was denied the said benefit. However, there is neither discussion nor a finding in the common Award as to whether any of the second respondent’s juniors were regularized in service. The Tribunal concluded that as the second respondent was entitled to reinstatement and he was aged about 32 years, it would be fit and reasonable to direct his regularization in service upon completion of one year after reinstatement. However, such regularization was directed to be given retrospective effect from 01.04.1987, the date of the initial appointment of the second respondent. When it was the specific case of the second respondent that he was discriminated against and his juniors had been regularized in service while he was denied, it was for him to substantiate and establish the same through evidence. However, no such steps were initiated. Further, no reason is forthcoming from the common Award as to why the Tribunal deemed it fit and reasonable to grant such regularization with retrospective effect. When the specific issue referred to the Tribunal was the entitlement of the second respondent to claim such regularization, the Tribunal ought to have given reasons to support its conclusion that the second respondent was entitled to be regularized in service. However, given the fact that the R&B Department of the State altogether denied the second respondent’s employment in its service and also failed to produce the relevant records despite the Tribunal’s direction, it is clear that the Tribunal was handicapped in dealing with the matter. It is now stated by the learned counsel that despite this Court granting stay of the common Award, the second respondent was reinstated in service and is presently working. As it was the case of the second respondent that his juniors had been regularized in service and he was discriminated against by denying him this benefit, he would be entitled to regularization only from such date that his junior was granted the relief and not from an anterior date. The common Award under challenge in so far as it pertained to I.D.No.92 of 1995 is accordingly modified to the extent of directing regularization of the second respondent in service from the date his junior in the list of NMR Gangmen was regularized in service. Such regularization would not however entail any monetary benefits till the date of reinstatement of the second respondent as he did not render service prior thereto owing to his termination from service. Upto the date of such reinstatement, the regularization would be given effect notionally for the purpose of computing the pensionary and terminal benefits of the second respondent. Subject to the above modification, the common Award in so far as it pertained to I.D.No.92 of 1995 is confirmed. The Writ Petition is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2011. VGSR/PGS