HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A. No. 1566 of 2003 DATED: 06.09.2011 Between:- The Management of Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. .. Appellant A N D The Presiding Officer and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ appeal is filed challenging the order, dated 27.3.2003 passed in W.P.No.12374 of 1995. The appellant filed the above writ petition against the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad in I.D.No.19 of 1990, dated 3.5.1994, wherein the concerned workmen were directed to be confirmed in the post of Coal Filler from the date on which one Edla Narasimha Reddy was confirmed. It is the case of the appellant that respondent No.2 raised a dispute, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(I)(d)(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). The case of the workmen is that they were, 13 in all, engaged as Badli workers in the petitioner-organization. While so, the said Narasimha Reddy was picked up and appointed on regular basis in the category of Coal Filler. The Union complains that the other 12 Badli workers, who are similarly situated were also entitled for being categorized as Coal Fillers in the organization, which was not done. Before the Tribunal, petitioner-appellant filed counter denying the allegations made by the workmen. After considering the matter, the Tribunal found that the denial of categorization of the 12 workmen on part with the said Narasimha Reddy was bad and directed that the services of the said 12 Badli workers may be re-categorized as Coal fillers from the date when the services of the said Narasimha Reddy were confirmed in the category of Coal Filler. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petition was filed. The learned single Judge of this Court after considering the entire material available on record, came to the conclusion that the result of the award is only keeping seniority of 12 workmen in the instant case on par with Narasimha Reddy and that absolutely no prejudice is caused to the interest of the management and no question of law involved for consideration of this Court in this matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal. Heard both the Counsel and perused the material available on record. The assertion of the 2nd respondent-workmen of Singareni Collieries Company Limited in an industrial dispute raised by them is that the appellant-management of Singareni Collieries did not confirm their services in the Company in the post of Coal Filler with effect from 01.07.1988 on par with Edla Narasimha Reddy, who is similarly situated, but confirmed with effect from 26.03.1989. The Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, by its Award dated 03.05.1994, directed the appellant-management to effect confirmation of services of the twelve workmen from 01.07.1988 instead of 26.03.1989 on par with Edla Narasimha Reddy. Challenging the Award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant- management filed W.P. No. 13274 of 1995 contending that there is no statute by which the workmen can claim confirmation of their services, unless there are specific recognized vacancies in which they can be absorbed. However, the learned Single Judge, by order dated 27.03.2003, dismissed the writ petition holding that there was a little gap of about six months only between the period 01.07.1988 and 26.03.1989 and the result of the Award is only to keep seniority of the workmen on par with E. Narasimha Reddy, and absolutely, no prejudice is caused to the interest of the management. Assailing the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant-management has preferred the present Writ Appeal. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-management is that Edla Narasimha Reddy was senior to the workmen and his services were confirmed in the category of Coal Filler, and further, as there were no existing vacancies in the year 1988, the services of the workmen concerned in the post of Coal Filler could not be made permanent, as such, they have no right to claim that their services should be made permanent with effect from 1988, and the learned Single Judge erred in upholding the Award passed by the Tribunal, as such, the order under appeal is liable to be set aside. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. There is no dispute that the services of the 2nd respondent – workmen, who are 12 in number and working as Badli workers in Singareni Collieries Company Limited, were confirmed in the post of Coal Filler with effect from 01.07.1989, but not on par with Edla Narasimha Reddy, whose services were confirmed in the same cadre with effect from 01.07.1988 during the pendency of the litigation. From a careful perusal of the order under appeal, it is obvious that the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-management, observed that there was a little gap of about six months only and the result of the Award is only to keep seniority of the twelve workmen on par with Narasimha Reddy, and absolutely, no prejudice is caused to the interest of the management. According to the learned counsel for the appellant-management, there were no clear existing vacancies for absorption in the year 1988 in mine area where the workmen were working as Badli workers. It is to be taken note of that even though the learned Single Judge emphasized the fact that the result of the Award is only to keep seniority of 12 workmen on par with Narasimha Reddy, but the fact remains that there were no clear existing vacancies in the year 1988 in order to absorb the workmen in the cadre of Coal Fillers. Even this averment is made clear in the counter filed by the appellant before the Tribunal, and it remains uncontroverted. When there were no such clear vacancies existing in the year 1988 and the appellant is not denying keeping of seniority, the question of the workmen, claiming as a matter of right, their seniority with effect from 01.07.1988 does not arise, and absolutely, in such circumstances, if the services of the workmen are considered on par with E.Narasimha Reddy, who is similarly situated, a great deal of prejudice would definitely cause to the appellant-management leading to indiscrimination and their seniority would adversely affect the morale of the mine workers. More over, this Court, by order dated 22.09.2003, granted interim suspension of the operation of the order of the learned Single Judge pending disposal of the appeal. Hence, the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant-management, in our considered opinion, is sustainable and the order under appeal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order dated 27.03.2003 passed in W.P. No. 13274 of 1995 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, is set aside. No order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 06.09.2011 ________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Bcj HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A. No. 1566 of 2003 (Order of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed} DATED: 06.09.2011 BCJ