THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.1830 of 1997 ORDER: Aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Warangal, in I.D.No.267 of 1993 dated 13-03-1996, the Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings Department, Khammam, is before this Court. The second respondent/workman filed a petition under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) contending that he worked as a Gang-Mazdoor under the control of the Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Khammam, that he had put in more than 240 days of service and that his services were terminated without any notice and without complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 25-F of the Act. The Labour Court found that the workman’s services had been terminated in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, and since he had put in more than 240 days of service in the 12 month period preceding his termination, such non-compliance with the requirements of Section 25-F of the Act would require his being reinstated into service as a Gang-Mazdoor. The Labour Court further directed the petitioners herein to appoint the second respondent-workman as a regular employee since he had completed 1½ years in the department, but without back wages. Learned Government Pleader for Transport (Roads and Buildings) would restrict his contention to the extent that the Labour Court had directed to regularize the services of the workman in the Roads and Buildings Department. Learned Government Pleader would submit that even in cases where the services of an employee are terminated contrary to Section 25-F of the Act, the only relief that can be granted is reinstatement into service, which would entail the workman being put back into service to the same post which he was working prior to his termination. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that in an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Act, it is only the termination of the services of the workman which can be the subject matter of challenge and that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction in granting the relief of regularization since such power of granting the benefit of regularization of services is beyond the scope of Section 2-A(2) of the Act. Sri P.Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for the second respondent, would contend that, in similar cases, the Government had preferred the writ petitions against similar awards of the Labour Courts and that this Court had dismissed the said writ petitions. This fact is disputed by the learned Government Pleader for Transport (Roads and Buildings) and it is stated that the other writ petitions are pending before this Court. Be that as it may, it is well settled that completion of 240 days of service does not, under law, import the right to regularisation. It merely imposes certain obligations on the employer at the time of termination of the service. (Madhyamik Siksha Parishad, U.P. v. Anil Kumar Mishra[1]). Since the Labour Court could have only directed reinstatement of the workman as a Gang-Mazdoor on its being satisfied that his services were terminated in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, the award to the extent the second respondent/workman was given the benefit of regularization must necessarily be set aside. The award of the Labour Court to the extent that it had directed the petitioners herein to appoint the second respondent-workman as a regular employee since he had completed 1½ years of service in the department and treating him as a regular employee is, accordingly, set aside. Sri P.Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for the second respondent-workman, would contend that the order now passed by this Court may be construed by the petitioners herein as disentitling the second respondent from ever claiming the benefit of regularization. Such apprehension is without any basis. This Court in certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is only examining the validity of the award and has not adjudicated the workman’s entitlement to claim regularization of his services. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:20-06-2008 Usd [1] AIR 1994 SC 1638