IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELVETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 20133 of 1999 Between: The Divisional Engineer, Microwave Maintenance, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. 2 Smt. D.Asirinaidu, S/o. Sri suryanarayana, Devadi (P.O& Village), Narasannapeta Mandalam, Srikakulam District. ....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 a writ or order or directions more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus and to declare the award dated 4.3.99 of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in IT ID. No.: (C) 2/96 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,Visakhapatnam as being illegal, null and void 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: MR.B.NARASIMHA SARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.S.R.SUBRAHMANYAM The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The Microwave Maintenance Division of the Telecom Department, Visakhapatnam, challenges the award dated 04.03.1999 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakahapatnam in IT ID No.(C) 2 of 1996. The 2nd respondent in this writ petition - D.Asirinaidu was the petitioner before the Labour Court in the IT ID. The case of the second respondent-workman before the Labour Court was that he was appointed as a patrol duty mazdoor in the service of the Telecom Department in December, 1981 and worked as such continuously till 30.09.1985. According to him, his services were terminated by way of oral orders. He claims to have made representations to the authorities with regard to his termination from service but the fact remains that he did not take any steps in this regard till April, 1994, when he issued a legal notice to the Telecom Department aggrieved by his termination from service. The Telecom Department, vide reply dated 09.06.1994, rejected the request of the second respondent-workman to reinstate him into service. As the conciliation proceedings initiated before the Assistant Labour Commissioner failed, the second respondent-workman approached the Labour Court by way of the subject ID. The case of the Telecom Department before the Labour Court was that the petitioner was engaged for a particular limited item of work and therefore, he could not be said to have been employed by it. Stating so, the Telecom Department sought to justify its action in terminating the services of the second respondent - workman without notice and without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court found that the second respondent- workman was not informed at any point of time that his services had been engaged only for a particular item of work. As the second respondent- workman admittedly worked for over 240 days, requiring the Telecom Department to comply with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act in the event of its’ resorting to termination of his service, the Labour Court held that the termination of his service is in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Holding so, the Labour Court directed the Telecom Department to reinstate the second respondent- workman into service with full back wages and continuity of service along with costs of Rs.500/-. At the time of admission of this Writ Petition, interim suspension of the award was granted subject to the condition of the Telecom Department complying with Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Heard Sri B.Narasimha Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - Telecom Department and Sri Bala Subrahmanyam, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent workman. The orders of appointment issued by the Telecom Department filed in the material papers clearly state that the services of the respondent were being continued for six months at a time and there is no indication that the same was for a limited item of work. The Telecom Department failed to substantiate that it ever put the second respondent on notice as to the status of his engagement being for a particular item of work only. Though this plea was taken by the Telecom Department before the Labour Court, the same was rejected. The mere fact that the second respondent-workman did not choose to file a rejoinder to the written statement of the Telecom Department before the Labour Court does not disentitle him from claiming that his termination from service is in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The award of the Labour Court to the extent that it found the termination of service of the second respondent workman to be in violation of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, cannot therefore, be found fault with. However, the direction of the Labour Court to pay full back wages to the second respondent-workman cannot be sustained on the facts of the case. It is an admitted fact that the services of the second respondent were terminated in September, 1985 and no substantial steps were taken by him in this regard till the year 1994. Having slept over the matter for a period of nine years, the second respondent workman cannot be permitted to seek back wages for this period. It is stated that pursuant to the order of this court directing the petitioner to comply with Section 17-B of the ID Act, the Telecom Department has taken the second respondent - workman back into service and he is continuing as such. In view of the said fact, the Writ Petition is allowed in part holding that the award of the Labour Court in IT ID No.(C) 2 of 1996 in so far as it directed reinstatement of the workman into service with continuity of service is lawful and valid and does not call for interference. The Award shall however stand modified to the extent that the 2nd respondent – workman is not entitled for any back wages from September, 1985 upto the date of filing of the IT ID before the Labour Court. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 12-06-2009 YVL/AMD