IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 2399 OF 2005 Between: Mohd. Hyder and others ..... APPELLANTS AND The Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 2399 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari ) Aggrieved by the common order dated 25.10.2005 made in W.P. No. 13419 of 1999 and Batch, remanding the matter to the Tribunal for determination of appropriate compensation to be paid to each of the workmen in lieu of reinstatement with full back wages, the workmen preferred this Writ Appeal. The second respondent company is engaged in the manufacture of defence equipment and the appellants – workmen, alleging that their services were terminated without complying with the provisions of Sec.25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) raised a dispute, which on reference by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, was registered as ID No. 435 of 1992 and on transfer, was re-numbered as ID No. 193 of 1994 on the file of the first respondent - Tribunal. The Tribunal on full-fledged trial, passed an Award on 30.12.1995, observing that since the appellants were engaged as helpers on daily wages prior to 1992 and since for the construction work of the Bhanoor Unit of Bharath Dynamics Limited, a defence undertaking, on regular basis was being carried out with persons of technical qualifications and it being a sensitive unit, it is not desirable to order reinstatement of all the appellants and, therefore, held that their retrenchment is bona fide and, thus, found the award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement was justified. But, however, the first respondent Tribunal directed that the appellants be considered in preference for future appointments to be made in the company after verifying the antecedents and that their age limit shall be taken into consideration only upto their first date of appointment as casual labour. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the first respondent Tribunal, the workmen filed WP No.13419 of 1996 while the Bharath Dynamics Limited, Bhannor unit, filed WP No. 20180 of 1996. The learned Single Judge on extensive consideration of the issue, passed the impugned order confirming the Award to the extent of awarding compensation to each of the workmen in lieu of reinstatement and also set aside the finding of the Tribunal directing the respondent company to consider the cases of the appellants for regular appointment on preferential basis with relaxation of age limit and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to determine the appropriate compensation to be paid to each of the workmen in lieu of reinstatement with full back wages within a period of four months inasmuch as the quantum of compensation determined at Rs.7,000/- to each of the workmen had no justifiable basis. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that it is an admitted case that the respondent Company has violated Section 25-F of the Act. He further contends that in view or the admitted violation of Sec.25-F of the Act, the appellants are entitled for reinstatement with full back wages. It is not in dispute that the respondent company is a sensitive unit involved in manufacture of defence equipment. In the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, the only issue is whether every case of violation of Sec. 25-F of the Act and termination of service, should result in award of reinstatement with full back wages. It is not in controversy that Section 25-F of the Act is violated. Therefore, it automatically entitles the workmen for reinstatement with full back wages. But, as held by the learned Single Judge, the Labour Courts and the Tribunal have discretion to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The learned Single Judge was perfectly right in confirming the award to the extent of setting aside the award directing the respondent to consider the cases of the appellants on preferential basis with relaxation of age limit for future recruitment, inasmuch as it is beyond the scope of the reference. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal without there being any material to determine the quantum and fixed at Rs.7000/-. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the quantum is quite unjust while the learned counsel for the respondent company submits that the quantum of Rs.7000/- is quite just inasmuch as the appellants have worked just for one year. Having regard to these submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case, we concur with the finding of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the Tribunal is not justified in determining the compensation at Rs.7000/- without assigning any reasons. Therefore, the learned Single Judge is perfectly right in remanding the matter to the Tribunal for determination of the just compensation. The Writ Appeal consequently fails and is accordingly dismissed directing the Tribunal to determine the quantum of compensation, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari __________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar October 20, 2009 MAS