Wyra, Khammam District v. Warangal - 506 009

Judgment

#1. A.P. Beverages Corporation Ltd., VI Floor, Posnett Bhavan, Tilak Road, Ramkot, Hyderabad Rep. by its Managing Director 2 L.M.L. Depot, A.P. Beverages Corporation Ltd., Wyra, Khammam District Rep. by its Depot Manager ..... PETITIONERS AND

#1. Hon'ble Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Warangal, rep. by its Presiding Officer. 2 Shaik Abdul Raheem s/o Uddandu Babu, Aged: about 37 years, R/o C/o S. Venkateshwar Rao, Advocate H.No. 5--11-1193, Pochammakunta, Hanumakonda, Warangal - 506 009. .....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 more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari and after calling for the records from the 1st respondent in I.D.No. 130/99 and quash the award dt. 30-5-2003, and consequently suspend the award of the Hon'ble 1st Respondent in I.D.No. 130/99 dt. 30-5-2003 Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: Dr. P. Bhaskar Mohan The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The Andhra Pradesh Beverages Corporation Limited has filed this writ petition along with I.M.L. Depot Manager, Wyra, aggrieved against the award dated 30-05-2003 in I.D.No. 130 of 1999 of the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Warangal. The 2nd respondent herein filed a claim petition under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking invalidation of his removal from service by the 2nd petitioner herein with effect from 26-12-1987 and for a direction to reinstate him with continuity of service and other benefits. The 2nd respondent herein is appointed as Worker in the Arrack Bottling Unit, Wyra on 25-12-1986. He claimed to have been continuously worked from the said date till 26-12-1987 on which date he was illegally terminated from service even without complying with the provisions of Sections 25-F of the Act. Contending that his termination tantamounts to illegal retrenchment, he claimed the benefits. The Labour Court, Warangal, on a correct appreciation of the evidence on record, including the oral evidence of the 2nd respondent herein as W.W.1, the service certificate (Ex.W.1) dated 18-07-1988 issued by the District Manager, Arrack Bottling Unit, Wyra showing the 2nd respondent herein as having worked during 25-12-1986 to 25-12- 1987; the admissions in the counter affidavit filed by the petitioners that the 2nd respondent had worked for 240 days from 25-12-1986 to end of December, 1987; the evidence of the District Manager of 2nd petitioner as M.W.1 admitting that prior to the 2nd respondent’s termination, the 2nd respondent has worked for 240 days and other evidence – oral and documentary – rightly recorded the conclusion that the workman was entitled to the benefits of Section 25-F of the Act. Indisputably the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were not complied with before the retrenchment of the 2nd respondent. The petitioners herein urged before the Labour Court as defence to the claim of the 2nd respondent that the industrial dispute had been instituted after considerable delay. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Limited (1), the Labour Court correctly applied the law and came to the conclusion that reliefs under the provisions of the Act could not be rejected solely on the ground of delay and that the delay of workman in approaching the industrial adjudicator could be suitably dealt with by appropriately moulding the relief. In the circumstances recorded in the award, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the retrenchment of the 2nd respondent herein is illegal and in view of the fact that the workman had approached the Industrial Tribunal with delay, denied him backwages, while directing his reinstatement as Casual Labour on daily wages with continuity of service. The Labour Court also found that the 2nd petitioner is continuing and some other activity is being pursued viz., storing of I.M.F.L. In the circumstances, the Labour Court directed that though the 2nd petitioner was not engaged in the arrack business, as it was continuing in the business of storing of IMFL, the 2nd respondent could be continued as Casual Labour in the said area of business. In the facts and circumstances above, this court discerns no error of law in the impugned award warranting interfering under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is without merits, beseeches rejection and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dt. 16-07-2004 Pvks/* To

#1. The Presiding Officer, Hon'ble Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Warangal,

2.2CCs to Government Pleader for Labour, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT).

3.2CD copies