THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1285 OF 2001 DATED 5th MARCH, 2010 BETWEEN: V.Nagaraju … Petitioner A n d The Assistant Social Welfare Officer, Madakasira, Anantapur District, and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1285 OF 2001 O R D E R The petitioner challenges the Award dated 05.07.2000 in I.D.No.203 of 1997 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. By the said Award, the Labour Court directed the respondents herein to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment as a Cook as and when vacancies arose in the Social Welfare Department. Though by the Award under challenge the Labour Court purportedly allowed the I.D., the petitioner therein preferred this writ petition as the Labour Court did not render any findings as to the validity of his alleged oral termination from service. The petitioner claimed that the said termination from service was in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1947’) but the Labour Court did not deal with that issue or with his prayer for reinstatement in service with continuity of service along with back wages and attendant benefits. The petitioner was employed as a Cook in the Government Boys’ Hostel at Siddaramapuram on daily wages for different spells in the year 1989 without any break in service. The service certificate dated 19.09.1989 issued by the Warden, Government Boys’ Hostel, Siddaramapuram, evidences the same. It is his case that he was thereafter employed in the same hostel from 18.08.1990 to 31.10.1990 and again from 21.10.1991 to 23.04.1994. He therefore claimed to have put in service for more than two years continuously in the last spell. As he was allegedly terminated from service orally without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, the petitioner filed I.D.No.203 of 1997. The stand of the respondents before the Labour Court was that the petitioner had himself absconded from duty from 30.04.1994 and therefore, there was no question of terminating his services. His claim for reinstatement and other reliefs was denied. The petitioner examined himself as W.W.1 and adduced documentary evidence by marking Exs.W.1 to W.4. The respondents examined one witness and did not adduce any documentary evidence. The Labour Court, upon considering the material placed before it, recorded the finding that the petitioner rendered continuous service between 21.10.1991 to 23.04.1994. Having stated so, however, the Labour Court did not deem it appropriate to ascertain whether the petitioner had absconded from work or whether he was orally terminated from service. Further, the Labour Court did not ascertain whether the respondents herein had complied with the provisions of the Act of 1947, in the event his services were terminated. This was the issue for consideration before the Labour Court. Surprisingly, the Labour Court misdirected itself and considered the eligibility of the petitioner for regularization of his services under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. Such a relief, in any event, could not have been granted by the Labour Court in the subject I.D. But, having entered into this issue, the Labour Court stated that the petitioner was ineligible to get any benefit under the said G.O., and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as and when vacancies arise in the Social Welfare Department. It is stated that in spite of this direction, the petitioner has not been appointed till date. Be that as it may, the manner in which the Labour Court adjudicated the issues raised in the I.D. leaves much to be desired. When the dispute before the Labour Court was with regard to the alleged oral termination of the petitioner from service and the consequences that follow thereupon, the Labour Court did not choose to examine and decide the same. The Award under challenge is therefore liable to be set aside. The matter requires to be adjudicated afresh by the Labour Court having due regard to the actual dispute raised in the I.D. The Award dated 05.07.2000 is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, for fresh adjudication. Keeping in mind the fact that the matter has been kept pending all these years, it is appropriate that the Labour Court give priority to this case and dispose of the same, after giving due opportunity of hearing to both sides, within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 5th MARCH, 2010 PGS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1285 OF 2001 5th MARCH, 2010