The latest Judgements are INDIAN LDRUGS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. WORKMEN, INT) AN DRUGS PTIARMACEUTICALS LTD

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMA\IARAPU RAJES]H WAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.17O24 OF 2OO(; ORDER: This writ petilion is liled seeking the follou'in 1 relief: ". . . . to catl for tlte records from the 1" respomk t t in I.D.No.126 of 20O3, and issue an appropial<' 1 trit Ord.er or Direction, partianlarly one in the noll' t ' oJ' Writ of Cerhoran and quash tlrc Award passed 1,1 the /s, respondent tn I.D.No.126 of 2OO3' (l'led 20.02.2006, published on 18.04.2006, dismissir r the claim made bg the petitioner a.s illegal, u 1 usl, controry to Laut and peruerse, and grant the re i l' of reinstatement into seruice utith uLages and ail t ther conseEte ntial benefits, and pass..."

2. Heard Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, learne J counsel for the petitioner and l,earned Government Pleader r r Pancha-vat Raj, appearing for respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits z s follows: Petitioner was engaged as a Pump Mechar ic rtnder the control of the 2"d respondent in the year 1992. E !'er since the datc of his engagement in the yeat 1992, the c:titioner was discharging his duties with utmost satis iactlon and continuously u'orked without any interrupti',n. Yet, his services were illegally and orally terminated on il'''.O2.2OO2. 2

4. The petitioner along with another similarly placed worker, namely Srinivas, approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by Iiling O.A.No.8583 of 200 1, seeking direction to the respondents No.2 to 4 to regularize their services and also for payment of alrears from 01.10.2000 onwards. Though there was a direction from the said Tribunal to continue the petitioner in service, the respondents illegally terminated the petitioner's services abruptly and orally with effect from 2A.O2.2OO2, without giving any notice nor paid any compensation. The petitioner continuously worked and put in more thar 240 days ald the order of termination is illegal and the same is in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short "the Act") and the

2.d respondent did not comply with the requirement of Section 25 F of the said Act.

5. The petitioner filed I.D.No.126 of 2003 belore the l't respondent challenging the termination order passed by the 2"d respondent and for reinstatement of petitioner with continuity of service and back wages. The l"t respondent passed an Award, daled 20.02.2O06 dismissing the claim of the petitioner with a finding that the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act and the 3 petrtloner \\ras not a regular workman an ( had not been appointed by a competent authority to utir ze his services. Aggrieved by the said award, the present writ i etition is filed 6 ' The petitioner having been worked for. about i 0 vears contrnuously, terminating the petitioner w l hout complying wirh the Section 25 F of the Act, is illegal. Acr crdingly, pra5zed to allow the Writ petition 7 . Learned Government pleader for panch ryat Raj filed a counter affidavit and submits as follows: That the petitioner was never engaged was only engaged as a piece worker and his sr: utilized as a driver only. The petitioner filecL 200 I before the Andhra pradesh Adminisr Hyderabad, seeking regularization of his st Tribunal directed the petitioner to subr representation to the 3.a respondent. ,\ petitioner submitted a representation before tir, and subsequently, the 3..r respondent rejected petitioner. Aggrieved by the rejection order, tLr I.D.No. 126 of 2OO3 for his reinstatement. rs an NMR and vices have been O.A.No.B5B3 of ative Tribunal, rvices and the rit a detailed :cordingh,, the

3..1 respondent he claim ol the petitioner filed

8. The petitioner was engaged temporarill and 1ater his servlces were terminated and that the petitior t r never vl,orked i h 4 for 24O days continuously. There is no order of appointment, termination and no ...ord regarding payment of wages and thus, the petitioner carnot be considered for reinstatement in terms of 25-F of the Act.

9. The 1"r respondent relying upon the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court, had categorically held thar the petitioner though u.orked on piece rate basis, the engagement itself from the date of its inception of service, is illegal and therefore uoid_ ab initio. According to the petitioner, he was appointed in 1992. But from 1984 onwards the Government depa_rtments are banned for engaging NMR workers. The evidence W.W-2 before the 1"t respondent in I.D.No.126 of 2003 shows that the petitioner was engaged as a worker on NMR basis, but such engagement itself is prohibited. If any appointments or engagement is made in contravention of rules. such appointments ca-nnot be reg,larized or countenanced. Hence, there cannot be any termination or appointment orally or in writing in such cases.

10. The Government had also notified the Award of the Hon'ble Industrial Tribuna-l Cum_Labour Court, Warangal, vide G.O.Rt.No. 725 Labour Employment Training & Factories (Lab_ 1) Departmenr, dared 10.O4.2006. 5

11. Section 25(F) of the Act to be followed irr cases where there is an appointment by following certai t procedure Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner s entitled for notice under Section 25(F) of the Act. It is furt 1 er submitted that the Supreme Court in many cases held that "Regularization of seruices can onlg be <l nte in an:cordance utith the Rules and not dehc's the Rrlles. Unless tLte appointments are mz 7e bg folloLuing the ntles such appointees do n': haue any ight to claim pennanent absorptiorr in the establishment. Euen if on adhoc or :asual appointment is mode in some continge t :y the sarne shouLd not be continued for long". The latest Judgements are INDIAN LDRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. WORKMEN, INT) AN DRUGS & PTIARMACEUTICALS LTD. 2OO7 (1) SCC 408, and 2006 (41 SCC page l, STATE OI.- KARNATAKA Vs. UMADE VI.

12. In the present case a1so, there is no sanct oned post and petitioner was not appointed on regular ba; s. Hence, the Industrial Tribunal rightly held that the a1lege,l termination is not illegal and petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6 FINDINGS OF THE COURT:

13. The contention of the petitioner is that, the termination is illegal, unjust, contrary to law and the same is violation of Section 25 F of the Act. As per the contention of the petitioner, he worked for 24O days and the 2"a respondent did not comply with the requirement of Section 25-F of the ID Act. Against the said grievance, the petitioner raised Industrial Dispute before the l"t respondent challenging the order of termination. The said ID was dismissed by observing as follows: "17. In uieut of the aboue decisions I hold that the petitioner though utorked on piece rate basis, the engagement itself from tLLe date of its inception of seruice is illegat and therefore uoid ab initio. According to his petition, he ruos appointed in 1992, but from 1984 onutards the Gouernment departments are banned for engaging NMR utorkers. Ttrc euidence of W.W 2 shotrs thot the petitioner utas engaged as a taorker on NMR basis. But such engagement itself i.s prohibited. If ang appointments or engagement is made in contrauention of n es such appointments cannot be either regulari-zed or countenanced. When their appointments ore from back door methods, their exists are through back door only. Hence there cannot be ony termination or appointment orallg or in uiting in such cases. Hence these tu-to points are found in fauour of th.e respondents and against the Petitioner. " 7

14. Learned counsel for the respondents re1i, d upon the order of this Court in W.P.No.16984 of 2006. the said writ petition is allou,ed u,ith the follo',ving observation:; " 17. Therefore, it is clear that the utorkman d : charged his initial onus of producing the doanmertt s in his possesslon and sought the respondents to produce paqment re.gister for the peiod from 1998 to t ebruary 2OO2. The management failed to produce the dc x-Lments sought for bg the utorkman, though there i.s tttr order of the Tribunal to that effect. Therefore, for non yt.tdrtction of the doanments bg the respondents, an aduerse presumptiort has to be drotun in uieuL of Sec ion 114 illustration (g) of the Euidence Act. 21 . At the cost of repetition in the present r ct_se, the petitioner was engaged os driuer on Gouerrtmett jeep, as there u.tas insufftcient staff and to carrying out t rc u..torks pertaining to uater supplying schemes iru:t t ling the maintenance of hand pumps. The Executiue Engineer addressed letter under Ex.W-1l stoli rg circumstances of their engagement and .s,> rght the Supeintendent Engineer to consider the repres:ntations of the aboue three persons. Furth.er, the petitioter, tuho s a utorkman as descibed under Section 2(s) cr the Act, could proue bosed on the mateial euidence that he serued for 24O days preceding the gear of ter rination. In ttLese ciratmstonces, ond follouing the juc qment of the Apex Court (supra) in similar ciranmstance_ , I am of the considered uieut that termination of tht I )etitioner, trithout complying the statutory prouisions untl :r Section 25-F of the Ac| is illegol and contrary to the p-, tciples of natural justice and tl. - qome needs to be set a,; Ce." 8

15. In the above case, petitioner therein filed IA No.396 of 2OO3 in ID No. L29 of 2OO3 to direct the respondents to produce the document i.e. payment register from January 1998 to February 2OO2. But the respondents failed to produce the said payment register. Therefore, for non-production of e document by the respondents, this Court had drawn an erse inference in view of Section 1 14 illustration (g) of the ence Act. And also, the petitioner who is a workman as d u/s 2(s) of the Act, could prove based on the evidence, that he served for 24O days preceding the termination. In these circumstances, the termination tioner without compliance of the Section 25-F of the and contrar5r to the principles of natural justice the same. Aggrieved by the same, the authorities .467 of 2Ol2 and the said Writ Appeal was the following observations: nsidered iual submissions made by the r side, this Court is of the considered he Ieamed Single Judge has ightlg atloued n preferred bg the respondent/ utorkman cific obseruation that the respond-ent put in more than 240 days of seruice in a qr ond admittedtg, in the instanl case the LDorkman has rendered. more than iO gears seruice, tohich uould meon that the lttorkman is u.torking against ttLe sq.nctioned this Court is not inclined to interfere .l2ossed bg the leomed Single Judge 4 of c 006 dated 1s.o9.201i 9

16. Moreover, in the above referred case, petlti rner liled IA for production of the payment register, but th: respondent authorities did not produce the same. :r the said circumstalces, the Tribunal believed the contt.: Ltion of the petitioner that he r,r,orked for 24O days. Whe -eas in the present case, there is no such averment such ir; proving of working period or payment of sa1ary etc., \lu i h the said observation, the referred case is not applicable to the case on hand. Moreover, in the referred case, the petit r ner u,orked against the sanctioned post. Whereas in the prest nt case, the petitioner did not work against the sanctioned post anci he was not appointed on regular basis. As such, the Tril, unal rightly dismissed the ID, *,hich needs no interference b.,, this Court. Hence, the Writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. ll r or61s. .. ,. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending ;hall stand closed To, SD/. S MT. K. MADHAVI ASSIST \NT REGISTRAR - -_,_J //TRUE COPY// S;l;CTION OFFICER

1. One CC tO SRI A-K,JAYAPRAKASH RAO, 2. Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR, High Court for the Stz.t ) of Telangana at te [oPL ( ] Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ, High Coul for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies BSR BM HIGH COURT DATED: 0711112025 ORDER WP.No.17024 of 2006 .: Eil rAs \) ) a. o t1 2r25 * ,Dr\] SEATC * D!SMISS!NG THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS d,s Y.