THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.20299 of 1999 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation of Siddipet Depot, Medak District, challenging the award of the Labour Court, Hyderabad, dated 21-04- 1999 passed in I.D. No.13 of 1996. 2. By the aforesaid award, directions were issued for reinstatement of the first respondent as a casual cleaner by giving benefit of continuity of service without back wages. 3. The first respondent herein filed application under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, questioning his removal order from the service as casual cleaner in the month of December, 1993. In the application filed before the Tribunal it was his case that he had been working as a casual cleaner from 24-05-1991 continuously. In spite of the same, his services were discontinued with the month of December, 1993 in violation of provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioner corporation, a counter-affidavit is filed. While denying the allegations of the first respondent, it was stated that the first respondent was not in employment of the corporation and he obtained a false identity card. It was its case that as there was no relationship of employer and employee as such, there was no violation of provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-H of the Act. 4. Before the Tribunal, the worker was examined as W.W.1 and on his behalf documentary evidence Exs.W.1 to W7 were marked. On behalf of the petitioner herein, Divisional Manger of Secunderabad was examined as M.W.1 and Exs.M1 to M7 were marked. The Tribunal, while rejecting the plea of the petitioner corporation that worker was not directly employed in the corporation, has ordered reinstatement by the impugned award. 5. In this writ petition also it is contended by the learned standing counsel appearing for the petitioner that as much as the worker was engaged by the contractor Bhooma Goud, who was given contract for cleaning, as such, there was no violation of provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-H of the Act. In this case, it is to be seen that even according to petitioner corporation, the application was given by the first respondent workman along with other workers to work as a cleaner in the corporation. At the same time, though it was a case of the petitioner corporation that contract given to such Bhoom Goud was also cancelled on 01-02-1993, there was no explanation at all on what basis services of the first respondent was continued up to December, 1993. There was no satisfactory explanation for continuing of the petitioner from 01-02- 1993, on which date the contract was cancelled according to the petitioner Depot Manager. In that view of the matter, having regard to the evidence on record, the Tribunal, while appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, had come to conclusion that the first respondent workman was working under the Corporation as a cleaner directly and his services were dispensed with in spite of the fact that the worker worked more than 240 days, without following the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-H of the Act. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that pursuant to the award of the Tribunal dated 21-04-1999, the workman was already reinstated into service and continuing as such. As much as no back wages were awarded and as findings recorded by the Tribunal were confirmed with oral and documentary evidence on record, I do not find any illegality so as to warrant any interference in the award of the Tribunal. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit. 7. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 20th February, 2009. skmr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20299 of 1999 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Siddipet Depot, Medak Disttict. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 M.Chandram, S/o Siddaiah, R/o 11-1-45/A, Bharatnagar, Siddipet, Medak District. 2 The Labour Court-II, rep. by its Presiding Officer, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, especially in the nature of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned award Dt. 21-4-99 made in ID No. 13/96, Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, published on 7-6-99 setting aside the alleged oral order of termination of the alleged services of the Ist respondent and directing his reinstatement into service with continuity of service, though without backwages and quash the same as being illegal, without jurisdiction and invalid, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO The Court made the following :