W.P. NO.19489 AND 22666 OF 1995 v. The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer,Labour Court, Hyderabad

giving for his disengagement. The lower Court held that in the circumstances though the workman should be entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages, the employer-Company which is a Government company is running on losses in Balanagar unit there is already a Chemist working in his own post and therefore the petitioner has to be kept idle, if he is to be reinstated and this will cause further loss to an already deeply ailing company. In the circumstances the Labour court directed that the respondent should pay the petitioner wages for three years as compensation in lieu of all the reliefs to which he is entitled and that the wages so payable shall be calculated at the minimum daily wages prescribed by the Government for a casual Lab Assistant as on the date of the award of the Labour Court. The employer’s writ petition (W.P.No.19489 of 1995) is against by the three years wages directed to be paid to the workman. The workman’s writ petition (W.P.No.22666 of 1995) is on the grievance that the relief of reinstatement and payment of back wages was declined despite a categorical finding of the invalidity of the termination dated. 21-08-1993. This is the integration between the two writ petitions. On behalf of the employer Mr.P.Nageswara Sree, the learned counsel reiterates the same contentions as have found disfavour in the labour court. It is contended that as the workman was employed on daily wages, his is a contract of daily employment that commences and ends everyday. He is neither entitled regularisation nor reinstatement with continuity of service. In the circumstances the award of the labour Court directing payment of wages computed for a three years period is invalid. On behalf of the workman Sri B.G.Ravindra Reddy, the learned counsel contends that in view of the unequivocal finding of the labour court that the workman’s termination was in transgression of the provisions of Sec.25-N of the Act, and in view of the provisions of Sec.25-N(iii) the only course open to the Court was to direct reinstatement into service with all benefits flowing consequent thereto. In the considered view of this Court neither of these contentions commend acceptance and in the circumstances of the case. Notwithstanding the petitioner’s employment on daily wages there is a finding of fact by the labour Court on record which finding is not disputed by the employer, that the petitioner has put in 240 days of continuous service in a calendar year during 21-08-1992 to 21-08-1993. The petitioner is therefore entitled to the benefits of Sec.25 but as the employer is an industry employing more than 100 workmen the provisions of Chapter-V(B) are applicable and therefore the applicable provision is Sec.25-N. Indisputably therefore the employer could not have terminated the service of any workman who was entitled the benefits under Sec.25-N unless previous approval of the appropriate government, in this case the Union Government, is obtained. Admittedly no such prior permission of the Central Government was obtained by the employer before terminating the workman from service. As a consequence the disengagement of the petitioner on 21-08-1993 amounts to retrenchment contrary to the provisions of Sec.25-N and the workman the normal circumstances, be entitled reinstatement into service as though there was no disengagement on 21-08-1993. The workman preferred to raise the dispute very shortly after his termination, by way of I.D.No.9 of 1994. An award was passed on 18-04-1995. The normal consequence of violation of Sec.25-N of the Act is that the workman would be entitled to reinstatement with about 20 months of wages payable to him from August-1993 to April- 1995 and thereafter it was open to the employer to disengage the petitioner in accordance with law. In view of the uncontested assertion of the employer that it was running in persistent and substantive losses and was already mulcted with having to reinstate Sri P.Suresh, it is quite conceivable that the employer would have obtained the permission of the appropriate Government for disengaging a Chemist, if it had applied. Further more as there was only one post of Chemist in Balangar unit and the vacancy had arise, on account of the illegal termination of Mr.P.Suresh the petitioner was engaged in a vacancy that occurred on account of the illegal termination P.Suresh. Mr.P.Suresh has already assailed his termination. There was thus no clear vacancy in the post of a Chemist to which the petitioner could have been appointed. The daily wage appointment of the workman is therefore what it is stated to have been-- a daily wage appointment. Coming to the case of the employer despite the unequivocal legislative direction in Sec.25-N of the Act, for some casual, irrelevant reason the employer chose disengage the petitioner from service without following the mandatory provisions of Sec.25-N. As a consequence the workman suffered a legal injury namely, violation of the statutory rights to which he was entitled. Taking a pragmatic view of the legal injury suffered by the workman and the extremely morbid financial state of the employer, the labour Court on a balanced exercise of its quasi- judicial discretion and in the plenitude of discretion available under Sec.11 of the Act, directed that the employer pay wages for three years as compensation to the petitioner in lieu of all the injury that the petitioner suffered as a result of his illegal termination. In the considered view of this court no case is made out for grant of relief to either the employer or the workman, in the circumstances above. It is represented at the Bar that pursuant to the conditional interim direction granted in the employer’s writ petition the employer had deposited 50% of the compensation as directed by the labour Court to the Credit of I.D.No.9 of 1994. In the totality of circumstances the writ petitions are disposed of directing the employer-M/S.Praga Tools Limited- petitioner in W.P.No.19489 of 1995 and the 2nd respondent in W.P.No.22666 of 1995 to pay the workman- K.Udaya Bhaskara Rao the compensation amount as directed by the Labour court after taking credit for the amounts already deposited, if any, to the credit of I.D.9 of 1994 within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. __________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 19th DECEMBER 2006 *TSNR