IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18662 of 1999 Between: Smt. A.Susheela W/o Raju, R/o Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Presiding Officer Addl. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad. 2 The Management of M/s Ahok Leyland I.D.A., Uppal, Hyderabad. 3 Mr.J.Obaiah H.NO.10-115/3, Ramulamma Nilayam, Vinayakanagar, Balanagar Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an order direction or Writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of CERTIORARI or any other appropriate writ calling for the records in I.D.No.70/97 on the file of 1st respondent herein quash the award and consequently set aside the award passed by the Labour Court while directing the respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER : This writ petition is filed against the award, dated 26th December 1998, passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.70 of 1997. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in the 2nd respondent-Company, on 26th February 1994, as a Helper and worked for four years. It was also his case that he worked for more than 240 days in every year, but inspite of the same, his services were retrenched, violating the provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The claim petition filed by the petitioner was resisted by the 2nd respondent-Company, disputing his employment itself in the Company. It was the case of the 2nd respondent-Company that the petitioner appears to have been engaged by the canteen contractor, and as much as he was not appointed by the Company, there was no occasion to retrench his services. 3. Before the Tribunal, no evidence was let in by the petitioner-workman, either oral or documentary. MW-1 was examined on behalf of the 2nd respondent-Company. The 3rd respondent herein has remained exparte before the Tribunal. 4. By the impugned award, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the petitioner has failed to adduce any evidence to show that he was appointed by the management of the 2nd respondent-Company. Relying on the oral evidence of MW-1, who was examined on behalf of the 2nd respondent- Company, the Tribunal has held that as the petitioner was not engaged by the 2nd respondent-Company, no direction can be given for his reinstatement. 5. In this writ petition, it is submitted by the leaned counsel for petitioner that though the petitioner has worked for four long years, his services were terminated without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. With reference to the aforesaid submission, inspite of denial by the 2nd respondent-Company about the employment of petitioner in their Company, the petitioner did not even choose to enter into witness box to depose that he was employed by the 2nd respondent-Company. In view of the oral evidence of MW-1, the Tribunal has correctly recorded a finding that the petitioner was not employed by the 2nd respondent-Management. In the absence of any evidence and material in support of the claim of the petitioner, the Tribunal has rightly denied to give directions for his reinstatement. I do not find any illegality in the award passed by the Tribunal, warranting interference of this Court. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 13th March 2009. ajr