IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.22654 of 2003 Between: Azmeer Khan, S/o.Khaja Khan, Nizamabad District … Petitioner And The Hon’ble Labour Court-III, Rep.by its Presiding Officer, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.27152 of 2003 Between: Azmeer Khan, S/o.Khaja Khan, Nizamabad District … Petitioner And The Assistant Director of Agriculture (FARM), Boppaspally, Nizamabad District. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. Nos.22654 and 27152 of 2003 COMMON ORDER: W.P. No.22654 of 2003 is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the award passed by the 1st respondent, Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, in I.D. No.77 of 1999, dated 14.11.2002 insofar as not granting continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits etc as perverse, illegal and unjust. W.P. No.27152 of 2003 is also filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the respondent in issuing proceedings No.A1/57/ID/77/99, dated 06.12.2003, terminating/retrenching services of the petitioner with effect from 05.01.2004 by paying one month wages by way of cheque dated 06.12.2003 as arbitrary, illegal and unjust. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and in view of the fact that the issue involved in both the writ petitions, is one and the same and the writ petitioner is one and the same in both the writ petitions, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed as Tractor Driver as casual labour on 07.01.1988 in the Agricultural (Farm) Boppasapally, Banswada, Nizamabad District and he worked continuously till 30.09.1993 on a consolidated payment of Rs.800/- per month. On 30.09.1993, the petitioner was orally informed that his services were not required. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised I.D.No.77 of 1999 on the file of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. While denying the averments made by the petitioner in I.D. No.77 of 1999, the respondents therein filed a counter, inter alia¸ contending that the petitioner is a complete stranger to them. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, held that the respondent in the said I.D. is an Industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) and the services of the petitioner were utilized as a casual Tractor Driver on daily wage basis continuously from 07.01.1988 to 30.09.1993 and the termination of his services is illegal and he is entitled to be reinstated into service as casual Tractor Driver on daily wage basis. However, it is also held that the petitioner is not entitled to back wages. Eventually, the petition was partly allowed directing the respondents therein to reinstate the petitioner into service as casual Tractor Driver on daily wage basis but without back wages. Pursuant to the said award, the petitioner was reinstated into service vide proceedings No.A/57/ID 77/99, dated 05.03.2003 and he was discharging his duties continuously without any break in service till 05.12.2003. But on 06.12.2003, notice under Section 25-F (a) of the Act, was issued terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 05.01.2004 by paying one month wages. Assailing the award dated 14.11.2002, the petitioner filed W.P. No.22654 of 2003 seeking to quash the award passed in I.D. No.77 of 1999 in so far as granting continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits etc., are concerned. Besides that, aggrieved by the impugned notice dated 06.12.2003, W.P. No.27152 of 2003 is filed seeking to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary. While denying the averments of the petitioner, the respondents filed counter, inter alia, contending that termination order dated 06.12.2003 was passed in compliance with the provisions of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that pursuant to the award dated 14.11.2002 passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No.77 of 1999, the petitioner was reinstated into service vide proceedings dated 05.03.2003. As the Labour Court denied the benefit of back wages etc., the petitioner filed W.P.No.22654 of 2003 and after receipt of notice in the said writ petition, the respondent passed the impugned order dated 06.12.2003, terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 05.01.2004 by paying one month wages, as counterblast. He contended that from the date of reinstatement into service i.e. 05.03.2003 till issuance of termination order, the petitioner was discharging his duties continuously without any break in service. He further contended that the respondents have passed impugned order dated 06.12.2003 without following the provisions as contemplated under Section 25-F (b) of the Act. He further contended that pursuant to the interim order dated 30.12.2003 passed in WPMP. No.34404 of 2003, seeking direction to the respondent to continue the petitioner as Tractor Driver by suspending operation of the order passed by the respondent in proceedings dated 06.12.2003, the petitioner is continuing in service as on today as a Tractor Driver on daily wage basis. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits and the proceedings dated 06.12.2003, passed by the respondent, are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner is not entitled to back wages as he approached the Court after a long lapse of about six years, from the date of his termination. He further contended that the termination order dated 06.12.2003 was served on the petitioner on 06.12.2003 itself whereas the notice in W.P. No.22654 of 2003 issued by the writ petitioner was delivered to the respondents on 08.12.2003. Thus, the contention of the petitioner defining the termination order as counterblast is false and without any basis and therefore, the question of issuing the impugned proceedings, dated 06.12.2003 as a counterblast to W.P.22654 of 2003, does not arise. It is further contended that the termination notice dated 06.12.2003 was issued to the petitioner in compliance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. From a perusal of the record, it is obvious that the petitioner, initially, worked with the respondent’s Farm for some period and thereafter, he was orally informed that his services are not required, for which, the petitioner raised Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court and the Labour Court having considered the rival contentions, directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service without back wages. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated into service. While he was working, he filed a writ petition assailing the award passed by the Labour Court for not granting continuity of service, back wages, attendant benefits and etc. Meanwhile, he was served with the impugned proceedings dated 06.12.2003, terminating his services with effect from 05.01.2004. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed another W.P. No.27152 of 2003. The main grievance of the petitioner in W.P. No.27152 of 2003 is that his services are terminated with effect from 05.01.2004 vide proceedings dated 06.12.2003, which is alleged to be a counterblast to the writ petition already filed by him and more over the impugned proceedings dated 06.12.2003 have been issued without following due process of law and particularly Section 25-F (b) of the Act. In this connection, now the point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned proceedings dated 06.12.2003 is in accordance with law and the award passed by the Labour Court suffers from any legal infirmity? At this stage, it is relevant to go through the impugned proceedings dated 06.12.2003, issued by the office of the Assistant Director of Agricultural (FARM) Boppasapally, which reads as under: “With reference to the Subject cited above, I am to inform you that even though there was no Casual labour work and also there was no budget allocation from the Govt.Since 2 years, you have been reinstated in to service w.e.f. 6-3- 2003 as a Casual Tractor Driver on Daily Wages @ Rs.100/- per day as per S.S.R., as per the Directions of Hon’ble Labour Court-II, Hyderabad by its order vide Award dt:14-11-2002 in I.D.No.77/99. During the period 6-3-2003 to 5- 12-2003 you have been paid the daily wages temporarily by obtaining your signatures on weekly muster rolls by paying daily wages with the permission of Commissioner of Agriculture, A.P.Hyderabad and Joint Director of Agril, Nizamabad. I am to further inform you that, as on today there is no work of Casual Tractor Driver on daily wages as there is no Farm Tractor work in the Farm and in view of this there is no specific budget for Casual Tractor Driver either to for payment on daily wages. I am to inform you that, during the said period i.e. w.e.f. 6-3-2003 to 5-12-2003 there is no appointment of Casual Tractor Driver on daily wages and there are no Juniors also working in the Farm. Under the above circumstances and facts your services have been terminated w.e.f. 5-1-2004 by paying one month wages by way of Cheque No.653585 Dt:6-12-2003 on S.B.H.Br.Banswada in favour of you. This notice issued under Section 25 – F (a) of I.D.Act.” It is seen from the above, that the impugned proceedings were issued under Section 25-F (a) of the Act, which reads as under: “(a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workmen has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice.” From the above facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that remains undisputed is that pursuant to the directions of the Labour Court, the petitioner has been reinstated into service on 06.03.2003 and subsequently, after sometime, he was terminated from services with effect from 05.01.2004 and after filing W.P.27152 of 2003, questioning the termination proceedings, dated 06.12.2003, the petitioner has been directed to be continued in service by way of interim direction granted by this Court on 28.7.2004. Before going into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to note that while ordering reinstatement of the petitioner into service, the Labour Court has rejected the rest of the claim of the petitioner merely on the ground that he did not approach the Labour Court within the reasonable time. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no justifiable reason to contradict the approach of the Labour Court in rejecting the rest of the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, W.P.22654 of 2003 is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed insofar as the continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits are concerned. Insofar as the impugned proceedings, dated 06.12.2003, are concerned, irrespective of the fact as to whether the respondents have complied with the provisions under Section 25 of the Act, it is to be noted that while admitting the writ petition in W.P.No.27152 of 2003, this Court has granted the interim direction in W.P.M.P.No:34404 of 2003 directing the respondent to continue the petitioner as Tractor Driver by suspending the operation of the order impugned and the said order has also been made absolute in W.V.M.P.No:631 of 2004 on 28.07.2004. In view of the above, it is obvious that the petitioner is being continued till now. As already stated, the order of the Labour Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity or irregularity and therefore, it does not warrant any interference by this Court. Consequently, the order impugned dated 06.12.2003 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, W.P.22654 of 2003 is dismissed confirming the order of the Labour Court and W.P.27152 of 2003 is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 03.09.2010 LSK