IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 14094 of 1999 Between: M/s. Photo Etch, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Sub photo Chakravarty S/o. P.N. Chakravarty, D-114, Phase-I, I.D.A., Jeedimatla, Hyderabad, R.R.District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Sri Anup Muzumdar S/o. Sri Nani gopal Muzumdar Layout Artist & Darkroomworker, 459, SR Nayak Nagar, Jeedimatla, Rangareddi District. 2 The Presiding Officer Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari setting aside the Award passed by the Respondent No.2 in I.D.No. 30/94 dated 30-11- 98 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law by calling for records and pass such other or orders as deemed fit and prope in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.K.WAGHRAY Counsel for the Respondent : DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR FOR R The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the award made in I.D.No.30 of 1994 dated 30.11.1998 on the file of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. Petitioner is management and first respondent is workman. It appears, first respondent worked as Artist-cum-Dark Room worker from 15.5.1990 to 30.11.1993 in the petitioner company. According to the respondent-workman, he was not allowed to attend to his duties from 30.11.1993 and he was abruptly retrenched from service. Therefore, he raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court stating that he worked continuously from 15.5.1990 to 30.11.1993 without any break and he was paid Rs.3,200/- per month. Neither any notice was issued nor any reasons were assigned for terminating his services. It is his further case that the management has not complied with the formalities as required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner-management filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the respondent-workman and stated that the workman was a chronic absentee and he was given several warnings regarding his absenteeism, but he never cared for the same and left the job on his own accord on 30.11.1993 and thereafter he did not report. Though he was asked to join the duty, he did not join the same. The facts that no notice of any kind was issued and no compensation was paid to the workman as required under Section 25F of the I.D. Act are not in dispute. Under those circumstances, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner-management has violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act and held that though respondent-workman had completed 240 days of service preceding the date of his termination, thus directed reinstatement of the workman into service with continuity of service, with all other attendant benefits, but without any back-wages. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the admitted facts that the respondent-workman had completed 240 days of continuous service preceding the date of his termination from service, and in view of violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act by the management, the Labour Court rightly directed for reinstatement of workman with continuity of service and with all other attendant benefits. In fact, the Labour Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, denied back-wages. I am of the opinion that no interference can be made into such an award passed by the Labour Court. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 21.4.2008 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No. 14094 of 1999 21.4.2008