Division Dargamitta, Nellore v. Labour Court, Guntur

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 to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records partaining to award No. ID. Case 662/91 dt. 8-8-97 on the file of Labour Court, Guntur and quash the same as illegal and opposed to I.D. Act and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following Order: Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, Guntur, in I.D.No. 662 of 1991 dated 08-08-1997, the present writ petition is filed. The first respondent-workman was engaged as an NMR and the finding recorded by the Labour Court is that he worked for more than 240 days in the 12 month period from 22-06-1984 to 21-06-1985.

On the ground that his services were terminated contrary to Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’), the Labour Court held that his termination was ab initio void. However, taking note of the admission of WW.1 that he was eking out his livelihood by doing private clerical work from June, 1985 onwards, and that there was no evidence except Ex.W.1 dated 21-10-1981 that he had approached the Management for reinstatement, the Labour Court held that he was not entitled for back wages. An award was passed directing reinstatement of the first respondent with continuity of service but without back wages. Learned Government Pleader would refer to the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition to contend that the first respondent-workman worked for 120 days in the year 1984 and 145 days in the year 1985. No break up is given of the periods during which the first respondent worked nor does the affidavit state as to from which period the first respondent was engaged and the date on which his services were dispensed with.

In any event, the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court that the first respondent-workman had put in more than 240 days in the 12 month period preceding his termination is on the basis of the evidence on record and the admission of MW.2. The findings of the Labour Court that the first respondent worked for more than 240 days cannot be said to be perverse. Learned Government Pleader for Irrigation would contend before this Court that the first respondent, whose services were disengaged from June 1985, had approached the Labour Court only in the year 1991 and that the inordinate delay of 6 years would disentitle him from being granted the relief sought for. While this submission cannot be said to be without merit, the fact remains that the Labour Court has the discretion, even in case the workman has invoked its jurisdiction belatedly, to mould the relief. It is relevant to note that the petitioner did not even taken the plea of latches before the Labour Court.

In any event the Labour Court has denied back wages to the first respondent-workman and has only directed that he be reinstated with continuity of service. I see no reason to entertain the plea of latches for the first time in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Government Pleader for Irrigation would place reliance on G.O.Ms.No.143 dated 16-03-1984 that recruitment of NMR workers was banned from 16-03-1984. MW.2, a witness who appeared before the Labour Court on behalf of the Management, himself admitted that the first respondent-workman was engaged thereafter. The petitioner- Management, having engaged the first respondent-workman, despite a ban on recruitment of NMRs, cannot be heard to contend that the very engagement of the first respondent being contrary to G.O.Ms.No.143 dated 16-03-1984, is illegal and ab initio void. The only consequence of an order of termination, contrary to Section 25-F of the Act, being set aside is that the workman concerned would be taken back in the very same post which he held prior to his termination.

As such, the first respondent-workman, pursuant to the orders of the Labour Court, would be entitled to be engaged as NMR. The mere fact that he was directed to be reinstated would not preclude the petitioner- Management herein from complying with Section 25-F of the Act and, for just and valid reasons, to terminate the services of the first respondent-workman. This cannot, however, be a ground to quash the award impugned in this writ petition. Viewed from any angle, the award does not necessitate interference. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ 18-02-2008 To 1 Two CD copies.