IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICAURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Saturday, the 27th day of August, 2011 Present: The Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar W.P.No. 2328 of 2002 Between: The Superintending Engineer, (R&B) Warangal Circle Warangal and another …Petitioners And The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal and another …Respondents The Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar Writ Petition No.2328 of 2002 O r d e r: The petitioners herein are – (1) The Superintending Engineer, (R&B) Warangal Circle, Warangal and (2) The Executive Engineer (R&B), Special Execution Circle, Mahaboobabad. They filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of Certiorari for quashing the Award dated 29—06—1999 passed in I.D.No.105 of 1995 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal (for short Labour Court) directing reinstatement of the second respondent herein into service as gang mazdur and to treat and consider her seniority among other NMR workers who were appointed along with her and thereafter. The Labour Court however denied her the back wages and other attendant benefits. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they have never engaged the second respondent, who is a lady as a worker at any time directly in their departmental service and the Labour Court went wrong in concluding that they so engaged her and that she worked for more than 240 days in the year immediately preceding the date of her termination. Their further contention is that the Tribunal has relied upon the evidence which ought not to have been relied upon in upholding the case of the second respondent. The details of the respective cases of both sides are set out in the Award of the Labour Court and it is not necessary to repeat them here, but it would be sufficient to note that on the above two contentions the petitioners are seeking quashing of the Award in question. 3. So far as the question whether or not the second respondent was directly engaged as a worker by the department of the petitioners is concerned, it should be noted that the second respondent P.Mallikamba and 15 others earlier filed W.P.No.7156 of 1994 questioning the vires of the A.P. Regulation of Appointments of Public Services and Regularization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure of 1994 (Act 2 of 1994). Further the Andhra Pradesh Highways Roads and Buildings Employees Union filed W.P.No.7910 of 1994 questioning the termination of certain workers including the second respondent herein with effect from 01.04.1994 on various grounds. Both the said writ petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 3.8.1995 marked as Ex.W2 upholding the above enactment and directing the concerned workers to approach the Labour Court for appropriate reliefs under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short Act). Thereafter the second respondent moved the Labour Court by way of I.D.No.105/1995. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the above two writ petitions. 4. In W.P.No.7156 of 1994, it would be sufficient to note that counter affidavit was filed by the Executive Engineer, R&B, Special Execution Division, Mahaboobabad, who is the second petitioner herein. In the said counter, which is marked as Ex.W1 in the present I.D., it is seen that the second petitioner herein categorically admitted that the second respondent and others were directly engaged by the department on daily wage basis without any continuity and assurance of re-engagement. In his cross examination before the Labour Court Sri K. Ashok Reddy (M.W1), the then Deputy Executive Engineer in R&B Division, Narsampet, who has jurisdiction over the present area has admitted that the above admissions in the counter filed in the said writ petition. Thus, from the above admissions in the counter filed in the earlier writ petition, it follows that the plea of the petitioners herein that they did not engage the second respondent Mallikamba directly but she was employed by contractors cannot be accepted. The Labour Court relied upon this counter and the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the second respondent to conclude that she was, in fact, directly engaged by the petitioners. Thus, so far as this finding of the Labour Court is concerned, it can be said that it is based on evidence and does not call for any interference. 5. Then coming to the other question i.e. whether or not the second respondent continuously worked for 240 days immediately before the date of her termination i.e. 01.04.1994, which is the requirement for application of Section 25-F of the Act, it may be noted that the second respondent has filed Exs.W-1 to W-5 giving her own evidence as W.W1. Ex W-1 is the counter filed in W.P.No.7156 of 1994 which is already mentioned supra. Ex W-2 is the common order copy of this court in W.P.Nos.7156 and 7910 of 1994 by which the said two writ petitions are dismissed. 6. It may then be noted that Exs.W-3 to W-5 are attendance particulars of the workers including the second respondent herein upto March 1993. They show that the second respondent was engaged during that period. Ex W-6 is a certified copy of deposition of one V.Sathaiah the then Works Inspector in the R & B Division of Narsampet. That deposition was recorded in I.D.No.149/1995 filed by one J.Bhikshapathy. It shows that the second respondent herein Mallikamba, one G.Laxminarayana and J.Bhikshapathy i.e. the claimant in I.D.No.149/1995 worked as workers in the R & B department till they were terminated. 7. It should thus be noted that by reason of copy of Ex.W1 counter filed in the earlier W.P.No.7156 of 1994, Exs.W3 to W5 attendance particular sheets and the certified copy of the deposition of V.Sathaiah marked as Ex.W6 the second respondent can be said to have discharged her initial burden of showing that she has been in continuous service upto 01.04.1994 on which date she was terminated. It may however be noted that the second respondent, it is true, did not file the attendance particulars from the end of March 1993 to the end of March 1994 but Ex.W6 certified copy of the deposition of V.Sathaiah would show that the second respondent and two others worked till their termination which took place on 01.04.1994. 8. The point raised by the learned Government pleader is that the second respondent did not make available V.Sathaiah for cross- examination and further she did not explain the source from which she got Exs W-3 to W-5 attendance particulars and therefore the Labour Court ought not to have relied upon that evidence to conclude that the second respondent was in continuous service for 240 days in the year preceding the date of her termination and as she failed to prove this aspect her case for retrenchment compensation or reinstatement should have been rejected. This contention cannot be accepted though it may sound apparently forceful. It may be noted that the petitioners did not file any document from their side to show that second respondent was not engaged till the date of her termination. This apart, M.W1 the Engineer admitted that the Works Inspector V.Sathaiah was still in service on the date of his deposition but yet petitioners did not examine him to prove their case. 9. Added to this, it may also be noted that M.W1 clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he can identify the second respondent and this only shows that second respondent was continuously attending to work as otherwise the probability of M.W1 identifying her would not arise. Further the department did not raise any objection when Exs.W-3 to W-6 were marked and their marking would also show that they were allowed to be marked without any objection. They would more probablize the case of the second respondent that she was in continuous service directly under the department of petitioners upto the date of termination and the failure of the department to lead contra evidence would only further strengthen the second respondent’s case. 10. Hence the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the Labour Court acted on an evidence which ought not to have been acted upon or there was no evidence before the Labour Court to find in favour of the second respondent cannot be accepted. What all that should be noted in certiorari jurisdiction is whether there was evidence to support the findings of the Tribunal i.e. the Labour Court here and the record shows that there was evidence before the said court to sustain its conclusion. The Labour Court considered all these aspects and concluded in favour of the second respondent. It can therefore be said that the findings of the Labour Court cannot be said to be against law and evidence and they do not in my opinion call for any interference. 11. It is the case of the second respondent that though she continuously worked for 240 days, the petitioners have terminated her in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. It may be noted that the Labour Court kept this point in view while ordering her reinstatement finding that Section 25-F of the Act has been violated which is a good ground for ordering reinstatement. 12. Accordingly for all the aforesaid reasons the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. August 27, 2011. *BVS/cvrk