THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.8703 of 2004 Dated: 21.07.2010 Between: Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupati, Chittoor District, Rep. by its Executive Officer. … Petitioner. and Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, rep. by its Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, and others. … Respondents. ORDER: This writ petition is filed against the common award dated 16.03.2004 passed in I.D.Nos.220, 221, 223 to 226, 247, 249 to 253, 257, 284 to 286 of 1999 and 146 of 2000 on the file of the learned Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. Petitioner is the management-Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams of Tirupati rep. by its Executive Officer. Respondents 2 to 18 are the workmen. It appears, the workmen were engaged as paid volunteers in the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams of Tirupati, and their services were terminated with effect from October, 1987, and therefore, they filed respective I.D.Nos.220, 221, 223 to 226, 247, 249 to 253, 257, 284 to 286 of 1999 and 146 of 2000 on the file of the learned Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, seeking a direction to the management to reinstate them into service with all consequential benefits, continuity of service, full backwages and to regularize their services with all other attendant benefits. It was the case of the workmen before the Industrial Tribunal that they were employed as paid volunteers in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (T.T.D.) and worked for more than 240 days in a calender year, but in the month of October, 1987, their services were orally terminated in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the I.D.Act’). It was their further case that subsequent to their termination, the management appointed several persons as paid volunteers and their services were regularized. The workmen contended that in I.D.No.120 of 1988 filed by the similarly situated workmen, the Tribunal directed the management to reinstate the workmen therein into service with all benefits and, therefore, they sought a direction to the management to reinstate them into service with all consequential benefits, continuity of service and full backwages and to regularize their services with all other attendant benefits. The management filed its counter before the Industrial Tribunal stating that the Industrial Disputes Act has no application to it, as it is a religious institution and its employees are governed by the service conditions enumerated in G.O.Ms.No.1060, Revenue (Endowment Department), dated 24.10.1989. It was stated that there was no master and servant relationship between the management and the workmen, and the workmen used to render service voluntarily on being sponsored by one late Jayarama Krishnan, a Scout Master and an active social worker, on payment of Rs.10/- per day towards their pocket expenses. It was also stated that Sections 25(F), (H) and (N) of the I.D. Act and Rules 78 and 79 of the Industrial Disputes Rules are not applicable to the workmen. It was further stated that there was no direct involvement of the management in entertaining the workmen and that the workmen never rendered service of 240 days in a calender year. On the basis of the above pleadings and the arguments of both sides, the following points were formulated: “(1) Whether the respondent is an Industry? (2) Whether the petitioners are workmen within the definition of 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ? (3) Whether there is Master and servant relationship between the respondent and the petitioners? (4) Whether the Act No.2/1994 bars the jurisdiction of this Court in entertaining the Industrial Disputes raised by the Petitioners? (5) Whether the petitioners are not entitled for any relief in view of inordinate delay in approaching this Court ? (6) Whether the petitioners are entitled for regularisation ? (7) Whether the juniors to the petitioners are continued in service and if so, to what relief the petitioners are entitled ? (8) Whether all the petitioners have put in 240 days of service in the preceding year prior to their termination ? (9) Whether the petitioners have discharged their burden of proof ? (10) Whether a daily wage worker is entitled for protection under Section 25(F) or (N) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? (11) Whether an adverse inference has to be drawn for non- production of documents by the respondent ? (12) To what relief ? On behalf of the workmen, WWs.1 to 17 were examined and Exs.W.1 to W27 were marked. On behalf of the Tribunal, Exs.C1 to C3 were marked. However, neither any oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the management. After detailed consideration of the entire evidence placed before it, the Tribunal gave a finding that the management is an Industry within the definition of Section 2(J) of the I.D. Act, that the workmen come within the definition of workmen as defined under Section 2(S) of the I.D. Act, that there is master and servant relationship between the management and the workmen, that the workmen have proved their prima facie case, that the oral evidence and the circumstances prove that all the workmen have worked for 240 days in the preceding year, that the termination of the services of the workmen is illegal, that the management has orally terminated the services of the workmen without following the procedure laid down under Sections 25-F, 25-N, 25-H and 25-G of the I.D. Act and, thus, by the impugned order dated 29.12.2003 declared the oral termination made by the management as illegal and directed the management to reinstate the workmen into service with continuity of service, but without any backwages till the date of filing of claim petitions and with half of backwages from the date of filing of the claim petitions till the date of the award and for full wages from the date of the award till the date of reinstatement. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner- management, strenuously contended that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are all erroneous and the award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside. Sri K.Jaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 18, supported the award passed by the Labour Court and stated that none of the findings recorded by the Labour Court can be said to be either arbitrary and illegal and not supported by any evidence. He further submitted that, in fact, the management had not lead in any evidence either oral or documentary and all the statements made by the workmen were unrebutted and, therefore, there was no other option for the Labour Court except to hold that the workmen had put in more than 240 days of service in a calender year. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. At the outset, it is to be noted that it is a settled law that the management-Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam is an Industry within the meaning of the I.D. Act and its employees come within the definition of workmen as defined under Section 2(S) of the I.D. Act. Except stating that the workmen were volunteers engaged by one Jayarama Krishnan and they were never paid by the management directly, the employment of the workmen is not denied by the management. As noticed at paragraph 17 of the award, the management has not adduced any evidence and not marked any documents on its behalf, whereas all the workmen have unequivocally asserted that they worked continuously and had put in service of more than 240 days in a calender year. At paragraph 14 of the award, the Labour Court has extracted the service particulars of the workmen as shown in the rejoinder filed before it. Further, at paragraph 74 of the award, the Labour Court referred to the relevant documents got marked on behalf of the workmen and the said paragraph is extracted hereunder: “Ex.W6 is the copy of the award of this Court in I.D.No.120/88, Ex.W7 is the copy of Award in I.D.No.77/97 to 101/97, Ex.W8 is the proceedings of respondent dated 10.04.1991 in which 29 paid volunteers were taken back as per the resolution No.1091 dt.1.4.1991. Ex.W9 is the Item No.634 of the Board Cell meeting of the respondent which shows that 102 persons are continuing as per interim directions of the Hon’ble High Court and 15 persons are continuing on compassionate grounds and 47 persons are continued as per the Award in I.D.No.120/88 and 38 persons are continuing as per the resolution from the TTD Trust Board and 39 persons continuing under contingencies. Ex.W11 is the list of paid volunteers continuing as per award in I.D.No.120/88. Ex.W.12 shows that T.T.D. Board Cell accorded sanction vide proceedings No.B6/6620/2001 dated 16.3.2002 to continue 3 paid volunteers and that E.O.TTD absorbed 31 paid volunteers in ROC.No.B5/50407/91 dated 5.11.1998. Ex.W12 also contains a list of paid volunteers who are continuing in service as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court and on compassionate grounds. The dates of joining of these workers show that they worked from 1984 to 1991. Ex.W11 shows that the paid volunteers who joined in between 1982 to 1992 are being continued.” Except filing rejoinder, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the management before the Labour Court to rebut the contentions of the workmen and, therefore, the Labour Court held that when all the workmen deposed that they worked continuously, it also includes the period of preceding year. It is not the case of the management that the workmen were engaged for a specific period or on a project work. It is an admitted fact that many paid volunteers are being continued in service and most of their services have been regularized. Admittedly, except filing the rejoinder, the management has not adduced any evidence in support of its plea and, therefore, mere pleading of the management has no value in the absence of any evidence, as observed by the Labour Court. More over, having pleaded by the management that the concerned records of the workmen were not handed over by late Sri Jayarama Krishnan, the management itself surprisingly mentioned the number of days worked by each workman in the rejoinder filed by it before the Labour Court. Further, it appears I.D.No.120 of 1988 filed by juniors of the petitioners attained finality. Considering all the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the Labour Court has rightly held that the management has terminated the services of the workmen without following the procedure prescribed under Sections 25-F, 25-N, 25-H and 25-G of the I.D. Act. But, however, since there was some delay in approaching the Labour Court by the workmen, the management cannot be mulcted with the burden of payment of half wages from the date of filing of the claim petitions till the date of passing of the award. Therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be modified as under: “The oral termination made by the management is declared as illegal. The management is directed to reinstate the workmen into service with continuity of service, but without any backwages. However, the workmen are entitled for full wages from the date of award till the date of reinstatement, and while calculating this, the wages already paid to the workmen under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act shall be given credit to.” With the above modification, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 21.07.2010 v v