IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No.1569 of 2005 Between: General Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank and another … Appellants And Shaik Chand and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No.1569 of 2005 JUDGMENT:- This writ appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the appellants/respondents in the I.D., against the dismissal of W.P.No.14738 of 1993, dated 19.12.2002, by the learned Single Judge in upholding the award passed by the Labour Court-II in I.D.No.708 of 1992, (old I.D.No.19 of 1990) dated 17.06.1993, whereby an award has been passed directing the re-instatement of respondent No.1/workman without break in service but without back wages. Respondent No.1/workman raised an industrial dispute stating that he was appointed as a peon with appellant No.2, which later merged into appellant No.1-bank, on 21.11.1975 and worked continuously till 01.08.1978, on which date his services were orally terminated. Appellant No.1/bank contested the dispute contending that the workman was employed as a Peon on daily wages in the Primary Agricultural Development Bank, Zogipet on temporary basis and his services were terminated after complying with all legal requirements; that the industrial dispute raised is barred by latches and limitation; and hence, it cannot be entertained. Negativing the contentions of the appellants/respondents in the I.D., the Labour Court-II has passed an award directing to reinstate the workman into service without break in service, but without back wages. Questioning the same, the appellants/Management filed the impugned writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 19.12.2002. On dismissal of the writ petition, respondent No.1/workman filed E.P.No.30 of 2004 under Section 11(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act”) and also filed M.P.No.25 of 2004 claiming wages from the date of award till the date of reinstatement into service, which came into effect on expiry of one month i.e., on 30.10.1993. On receipt of the notice in the E.P., the Bank filed the present writ appeal with an application viz., WP.MP.No.2588 of 2005, to condone the delay of 196 days in filing the appeal and the said delay was condoned. This Court by order, dated 23.08.2005, suspended the order subject to condition that respondent No.1-workman be reinstated into service which works out from 01.09.2005, making the reinstatement subject to the result in the appeal. In obedience to the said orders, the workman was reinstated into service and he worked continuously till his retirement from service on 28.02.2010 on reaching the age of superannuation. Learned counsel for the appellants/Bank contends that since respondent No.1 has already been reinstated into service and retired from service, he is not entitled to the wages from the date of award till the date of reinstatement as he has not worked during the said period. Further, she contends that respondent No.1 raised the Industrial dispute after 14 years of the alleged termination. In view of the inordinate delay and the latches, the I.D. should not have been entertained. Further, in the grounds of appeal, it is contended that respondent No.1/workman never worked continuously for 240 days in a year and hence he is not entitled to any benefit in view of section 2(oo) of the Act. Admittedly, the plea that the workman never worked continuously for 240 days and he is not entitled to any benefit in view of section 2(oo) of the Act, has not been raised before the Industrial Tribunal except stating that the services were terminated only according to law, which has not been accepted by the Industrial Tribunal while adjudicating the I.D. and found that the procedure contemplated under Section 25(f) of the Act, has not been followed before termination of services and ordered respondent No.1 be reinstated into service without back wages. Once the appellants-management unsuccessfully challenged the award of the Tribunal, they are bound to reinstate respondent No.1 into service or pay the wages from the date of the award till he was reinstated into service. Even pending the writ petition, the appellant has not complied with the provisions of Sec.17(b) of the Act. Therefore, it is not open for the appellants to contend that respondent No.1 is not entitled to back wages from the date of award till the date of his reinstatement into service for the lapses of the appellants in reinstating him into service on the ground that the writ petition was pending. Once the learned Single Judge refused to exercise the discretion following the principles laid down by the apex Court in {Ramkanaly Colliery of BCCL v. Workmen (2001(4) SCC 236)}, no infirmity is discernable with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ____________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J December 14, 2010 lmv