THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NOS.17576 OF 2000 AND 16673 OF 2002 AND C.C.NO.1296 OF 2003 COMMON ORDER Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the award dated 17.4.1998 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D.No.3/1997 in declaring the oral retrenchment of the 1st respondent – workman, who was appointed as Technical works Inspector in the A. P. State Housing Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) on 8.1.1987, as void and directing his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service, the Management of the Corporation filed the writ petition in W.P.No.17576/2000. 3. The workman filed the other writ petition in W.P.No.16673/2002 for a direction to the respondents i.e., the Management of the Corporation to regularize his services and to pay him salary in the regular scale of pay attached to the post held by him on par with his juniors. He also filed a miscellaneous petition in W.P.M.P.No.30106/2006 in W.P.No.16673/2002 for a directing to the Corporation to regularize his services in the existing sanctioned vacant posts of Work Inspector (technical) in terms of G.O.Rt.No.138 Housing (U & IAY) Department dated 8.5.2006, as has been done in respect of similarly situated Work Inspectors in the respondent – Corporation, pending disposal of the writ petition. 4. In W.P.M.P.No.20890/2002 in W.P.No.16673/2002 this Court by interim order dated 24.09.2002 directed the respondent – Corporation to pay the petitioner the salary attached to the post held by him, subject to the out come of the result in W.P.No.17576/2000. Complaining that the respondent – Corporation has violated the interim orders of this court dated 24.9.2002, the workman filed the contempt case in C.C.No.1296/2003. 5. As the subject matter in all the three cases is connected, they are being disposed of by this common order. 6. Claiming that he was appointed as Technical Works Inspector in the Corporation on 9.1.1987 and that has continuously worked up to 31.12.1987 i.e., more than 357 days and that he was retrenched orally without following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’), the workman filed I.D.No.3/1997 under Section 2A(2) of the Act. Though the management of the Corporation was served with notice, as it did not participate in the I.D. proceedings, it was set ex parte. The Tribunal by examining the workman as W.W.1 and considering his appointment order and service certificates which were marked as Exs.W-1 and W-2, held that the workman is the employee of the Corporation and that he worked more than 240 days during the year 1987 and as the management retrenched his services in violations of the provisions of the Act, the Tribunal held that the retrenchment is void and consequently directed reinstatement of the workman with full back wages and continuity of service. Aggrieved by the same, the Corporation filed W.P.No.17576/2000 on the grounds that the workman was appointed on temporary basis by the 3rd respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the not the competent authority and further the award was passed without notice to the Corporation. 7. It is submitted that pursuant to the award of the Tribunal, the workman was reinstated into service and this court in W.P.M.P.No.22330/2000 by interim order dated 21.9.2000 granted interim suspension of the award. On a vacate petition being filed by the workman in WVMP.No.1923/2001 in W.P.M.P.No.22330/2000 in W.P.No.17576/2000, by order dated 26.7.2001 the interim suspension was made absolute on the condition of the Corporation depositing half of the back wages within eight weeks from the that date and on such deposit the workman was permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. 8. The 3rd respondent – The Revenue Divisional Officer filed counter and stated that it is not correct to say that the workman was appointed by the 3rd respondent who is not the competent authority. It is stated that the previously the Agency area of Rajavommangi Mandal is in the jurisdiction of Peddapuram Division and that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram is the Assistant Agent to the Government in Agency Area. All the developmental activities were supervised by the then Revenue Divisional Officers up to the Agency area of the Peddapuram Division tagged on to the newly formed Rampachodavaram Agency Division. It is further stated that during the period, all the departments of the agency area, have routed their files through the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram as he is the Supervising Officer. As seen from the appointment order, it is observed that the then Deputy Executive Engineer, Housing Corporation, Rajavommangi might have been rooted his office file and obtained the orders from the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram as there is no office file number or other particulars of this office were mentioned in the orders. It is also observed that there is no reason to appoint the individual as Work Inspector in Rajavommangi Mandal, who is the resident of Vemagiri village of Kadiam Mandal, which lies in Rajahmundry Division. With these averments, the writ petition was sought to be dismissed. 9. Coming to the other writ petition in W.P.No.16673/2002, the case of the workman, as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, is that, he was appointed as Technical Work Inspector in the Corporation on 8.1.1987 and when he was discontinued from 1.1.1998 he filed I.D.No.3/1997 on the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and by order dated 17.4.1998 he was directed to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service and pursuant thereto, by proceedings in Rc.No.A1/242/98 dated 25.4.2000 issued by the District Manager of the Corporation, Kakinada, he was reinstated into service as NMR Technical Work Inspector and was allotted to Kapileswarapuram section. It is stated that he was sanctioned wages prior to his reinstatement. However as per the interim directions of this court in the vacate petition filed in WVMP.No.1923/2001 in WPMP.No.22330/2000 in W.P.No.17576/2000 dated 26.7.2001 he was paid the back wages. The grievance of the petitioner is that his juniors who were engaged as NMR Technical Work Inspector in the respondent – Corporation and who are discharging similar duties, are being paid Rs.4,000/- per month and that he is being paid a meager consolidated amount of Rs.600/- per month. Therefore, he is seeking a direction to the respondent – Corporation to pay his salary on par with his juniors. His further case is that he is entitled for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 F & W dated 22.4.1994, but because of illegal retrenchment, his services were not regularized. 10. The workman also filed WPMP.No.30106/2006 in WP.NO.16673/2002 and in the affidavit filed in support of the petition it is stated that after filing of the writ petition, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.138 Housing (U & IAY) Dept. dated 8.5.2006 regularizing 305 Work Inspectors (technical/Non-Technical) engaged in the respondent – Corporation during the year 1989 and 1993. It is stated that as against the 312 sanctioned posts of Work Inspectors (Technical/Non-Technical), 305 persons have been regularized. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking regularization in terms of G.O.Rt.No.138 as he is engaged as NMR on 8.1.1987 and that though he was retrenched, by the award of the Tribunal, he was reinstated into service with full back wages and continuity of service. 11. The Corporation also filed counter and denied the averments of the petitioner 12. The learned counsel appearing for the Corporation though sought to contend that the award was passed by the Tribunal without serving notice to the Corporation and that the workman was appointed on temporary basis that too by 3rd respondent – The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapura, East Godavari Distsrict, who is not the competent authority, further submitted that he has instructions to the effect that the award of the Tribunal may be modified to the extent of confirming the reinstatement with continuity of service, but with half of the back wages, which were already paid to the petitioner. With regard to the prayer for the petitioner to regularize his services in terms of G.O.Rt.No.138, he submitted that straight away his services cannot be regularized, but his case may be directed to be considered as per the said G.O. 13. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the workman, on instructions, conceded to the representation made by the counsel for the Corporation and submitted that the award of the Tribunal may be accordingly modified. He further submitted that similarly situated Work Inspectors who are juniors to the workman were regularized and the workman is also discharging the similar duties and as the case of the workman is pending consideration in the writ petitions, his name could not be forwarded for regularization and in view of the above submission of the counsel for the Corporation, he sought to pass appropriate orders in the matter relating to the regularization of the services of the petitioner as per G.O.Rt.No.138 and on par with his juniors. 14. From the above material on record, it is clear that the workman was appointed as Technical Work Inspector in the Corporation on 8.1.1987 and when he was retrenched, he raised I.D.No.3/1997 and the Tribunal, by setting the Corporation ex parte, as non-appeared on their behalf despite service of notice, held that the workmen worked for more than 240 days and further considering his appointment order and service certificate which were marked in the I.D., held that the retrenchment is in violation of the provisions contained in the Act and accordingly ordered for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. Pursuant to the award of the Tribunal, the workman was reinstated and pursuant to the interim orders of this court, he was paid half of the back wages awarded by the Tribunal. The grievance of the workman is that he is being paid the consolidated amount of Rs.600/- and whereas his juniors who are holding the said post and discharging the same duties, are being paid Rs.4,000/- and further he is entitled to be regularized in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 F and W dated 22.4.1994. After the filing of the writ petition, as the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.138 Housing (U & IAY) Department dated 8.5.2006 regularizing 305 persons of Work Inspectors (Technical/Non-Technical) as against 312 sanctioned posts, who are juniors to the petitioners and who are appointed between 1989 and 1993, the petitioner is seeking a direction for consideration of his case on par with his juniors. 15. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances and considering the submissions of both the counsel and in the interest of justice, I pass the order as under: “W.P.No.17576/2000 is disposed of by confirming the award dated 17.4.1998 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam to the extent of reinstatement with continuity of service with fifty percent of back wages. W.P.No.16673 of 2002 and W.P.M.P.No.30106/2006 are disposed directing the respondent – Corporation to consider the case of the workman for regularization in terms of G.O.Rt.No.138 dated 8.5.2006 and in the light of the above facts and circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the services of the similarly situated Work Inspectors (Technical) who are juniors to the petitioners have been regularized vide G.O.Rt.No.138 dated 8.5.2006; and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In view of the above consensus arrived at between the parties and the writ petitions are disposed of the with the above directions, the contempt case is closed.” 16. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. AVS --------------------------------- 07—07—2008