IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEEN DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23729 of 1995 Between: Shaik Kareem … Petitioner AND Executive Engineer, Nagarjunasagar Canals Division No.I, Kuruchedu, Prakasam District. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : None Counsel for the respondent: AGP for Irrigation and CAD This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23729 of 1995 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash memo No.AB/13/ID.129/90/1933/M, dated 05.09.1993 issued by the respondent. The petitioner worked as a water boy on daily wage basis in the office of the Superintending Engineer, N.S.C. Circle, Kurichedu from 11.04.1977 to 30.06.1977, as water carrier from 01.04.1978 to 30.07.1978 and again as water boy in N.S.C. F.C. division from 20.04.1979 to 15.06.1979 and in N.S.C. Sub-Division, Kurichedu from 15.04.1982 to 19.06.1982. The petitioner worked as NMR Mazdoor from July 1982 to July 1983. As his services were retrenched orally without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’), he raised an industrial dispute by way of I.D.No.129 of 1990 before the Labour Court, Guntur. The said I.D. was allowed by holding that the retrenchment of the petitioner was in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. While denying back wages to the petitioner, the Labour Court directed that the petitioner’s claim for regularization shall be considered in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. While purporting to consider the said award, the respondent issued the impugned memo, wherein the petitioner’s claim for regularization was rejected on the ground that he was not on duty as on 25.11.1993. The reason of rejection contained in the impugned memo is preposterous, to say the least. The Labour Court in its award observed as under: “The Government formulated a scheme for absorption of daily wage/MNR or consolidated pay employees in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. To get the benefit of G.O., one must be in service on daily wage/MNR of on consolidated pay on the date of commencement of Act 2 of 1994 i.e., 25.11.1993. Because of the illegal termination of the management, the petitioner’s case is not coming within the purview of the G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. When once his termination is not aside he is deemed to be in service as NMR as on 25.11.1993 and he entitled to claim benefit of G.O.Ms.No.212. In the result the management is directed to consider the case of the workman as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. In the circumstances of the case, the workman is not entitled for any back wages.” The respondent has obviously not applied his mind to the specific observations of the Labour Court, wherein it categorically stated that but for the illegal retrenchment, the petitioner would have continued in service as on 25.11.1993. The approach of the respondent is totally illegal and contrary to the specific directions of the Labour Court and also G.O.Ms.No.212 under which the petitioner is entitled to regularization, if he satisfies all the requirements including his continuance as on 25.11.1993. In view of the categorical finding of the Labour Court, referred to above, it is deemed that the petitioner was continuing in service as on 25.11.1993. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization and pass appropriate order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.29166 of 1995 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.12.2008 ES