Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Y.V.V.Satyanarayana, vs The Municipal Commissioner, ... on 25 November, 2021
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
W.A.Nos.1260 and 1264 of 2014
W.A.No.1260 of 2014
(Taken up through video conferencing)
Y.V.V. Satyanarayana, S/o.
Simhachalam, aged 49 years,
Occupation un-employee, R/o.15th
ward, Nandi Bomma centre,
Tadepalligudem, West Godavari
District.
...Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
The Municipal Commissioner,
Tadepalligudem, Municipality
Tadepalligudem, West Godavari
District and 2 others.
...Respondents/Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. M. Pitchaiah
Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Mr. D. Khasim Saheb,
Standing Counsel
Counsel for Respondent No.2 : --
Counsel for Respondent No.3 : --
Date of hearing : 20.10.2021
Date of pronouncement : 25.11.2021.
AND
HCJ & CPKJ
W.A.Nos.1260 & 1264 of 2014
W.A.No.1264 of 2014
The Municipal Commissioner,
Tadepalligudem Municipality,
Tadepalligudem, West Godavari
District.
...Appellant/Respondent No.1
Versus
Y.V.V. Satyanarayana, S/o.
Simhachalam, R/o.15 th ward,
Nandi Bomma Centre,
Tadepalligudem, West Godavari
and 2 others
...Respondents/Petitioner/
Respondents 2 & 3
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. D. Khasim Saheb
Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Mr. M. Pitchaiah
Counsel for Respondent No.2 : --
Counsel for Respondent No.3 : --
Date of hearing : 20.10.2021
Date of pronouncement : 25.11.2021.
HCJ & CPKJ
W.A.Nos.1260 & 1264 of 2014
COMMON JUDGMENT (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar)
1) As both the Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent are interconnected, the same are heard and
disposed of by this Common Judgment.
2) As seen from the record, Writ Petition No.5385 of 2008
came to be filed by one Y.V.V. Satyanarayana, seeking
issuance of Writ of Mandamus to declare the Award, dated
10.07.2007, passed by the Labour Court, Guntur, in
I.D.No.139 of 2003, as illegal, improper and violative of
Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently
to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service,
backwages and all other attendant benefits.
3) The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the
Writ Petition, would show that the petitioner joined as
Motivator in Engineering Section in Tadepalligudem
Municipality on 01.03.1982 and worked for a period of two
(02) years. Thereafter, he worked as Motivator in Low Costs
Sanitation Works till 31.03.1992 in the very same
Municipality.
(i) While things stood thus, on 01.04.1992, he was orally
terminated from the service without issuing any notice as
HCJ & CPKJ
W.A.Nos.1260 & 1264 of 2014
required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 ["here-in-after referred to as "I.D. Act"].
(ii) Since, the action of the respondents was contrary to
law, the Writ Petitioner i.e., Y.V.V. Satyanarayana filed
I.D.No.139 of 2003 before the Labour Court, challenging his
termination from service. After conducting an enquiry, the
Labour Court dismissed the I.D. holding that the petitioner
cannot claim to be a regular worker or a casual worker as he
has not put in 240 days of service preceding the date of
termination. It was further held that the order of termination
was not in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act.
(iii) Assailing the same, W.P.No.5385 of 2008 was filed.
By an order, dated 15.12.2013, a learned Single Judge of the
Combined High Court allowed the Writ Petition, holding that
the petitioner has put in 240 days of service in the year prior
to his removal and as such, he is entitled for reinstatement as
Motivator with continuity of service with all attendant benefits
but without backwages.
4) Being aggrieved, the Writ Petitioner filed W.A.No.1260 of
2014 challenging denial of backwages, while the Municipal
Commissioner, Tadepalligudem Municipality, filed
W.A.No.1264 of 2014 questioning the order of reinstatement
with all attendant benefits.
HCJ & CPKJ
W.A.Nos.1260 & 1264 of 2014
5) Sri D. Khasim Saheb, learned Standing Counsel for
respondent Municipality mainly submits that there is
absolutely no material available on record to show that the
petitioner has put in 240 days of continuous service in the
year preceding the order of termination. He submits that the
burden of proving the period of service, is on the petitioner
and as he failed to demonstrate the same, the learned Single
Judge erred in holding that the petitioner has put in 240 days
of continuous service. He further submits that by no stretch
of imagination, the mathematical calculation made by the
learned Single Judge in holding that the petitioner has
completed 240 days of service in a calendar year, cannot be
accepted, in the absence of any evidence being placed to that
effect.
6) On the other hand, Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel
appearing for the workmen, would submit that the finding of
the learned Single Judge in holding that the petitioner has
worked continuously for a period of 240 days, is evident from
the counter filed by the Municipality itself and as such, no
separate evidence need be adduced to prove an admitted fact.
He further submits that having reinstated the petitioner,
learned Single Judge erred in rejecting the backwages though
some of the workmen who stand on the same footing as that
of the Writ Petitioner, were ordered to be paid backwages.
HCJ & CPKJ
W.A.Nos.1260 & 1264 of 2014
7) The point that arises for consideration is, whether the
Order impugned in the two Writ Appeals warrants interference
and, if so, to what extent?
8) The main plank of the argument advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the Municipality is with regard
to violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act or in other words,
whether the Writ Petitioner has continuously worked for 240
days in the year preceding the order of termination being
passed by the Municipality.
9) It is to be noted here that, the action of the Municipality
in terminating the service of the petitioner, came to be
challenged vide I.D.No.139 of 2003 before the Labour Court
which, passed a „nil‟ Award, upholding the Order of oral
termination passed by the respondent authorities.
10) It is not in dispute that the petitioner joined as a
Motivator in Engineering Section of the Municipality on
01.03.1982 and he was terminated on 01.04.1992, though he
discharged his duties to the satisfaction of the management.
The question is whether there is any material on record to
show that the petitioner continuously worked for 240 days in
the year preceding date of termination of service. It is nodoubt
true that the initial burden is on the Writ Petitioner to
HCJ & CPKJ
W.A.Nos.1260 & 1264 of 2014
establish that he has put in 240 days of continuous service.
In discharge of his initial burden, the petitioner placed on
record the Service Certificate issued by the Municipal
Commissioner, which would disclose that prior to his
termination, the petitioner worked for about 1509 days,
between the period 1982 to 1992, as per the Office records.
11) In the I.D. filed by the petitioner, the Labour Court vide
its order, dated 10.07.2007 rejected the case of the petitioner
on the ground that the certificate filed does not show that the
petitioner worked for 240 days between 31.03.1991 and
01.04.1992. In the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner,
challenging the orders of the Labour Court, a counter came to
be filed by the respondent No.1 Municipal Commissioner,
Tadepalligudem Municipality, wherein in paragraph no.14 of
the said counter, it was categorically said that the petitioner
was employed on temporary basis and worked continuously
for more than 240 days within a period of 12 months
preceding the date of termination on 01.04.1992. It would be
appropriate to extract the said paragraph which reads as
under:
14. The respondent humbly submit that the petitioner is
employed on temporary basis and worked continuously for
more than 240 days within a period of 12 months preceding
to termination on 01.04.1992, and never worked as
prescribed under law and as such oral termination of
services are valid under Law".
HCJ & CPKJ
W.A.Nos.1260 & 1264 of 2014
12. When the averments in the counter run contra to the
stand taken by the Municipality, we feel that the finding of
the learned Single Judge in holding that the petitioner has
put in 240 days of continuous service warrants no
interference.
13) The next issue that would fall for consideration is as to
whether the petitioner is entitled for backwages. As the
payment of backwages is having a discretionary element
involved in it has to be dealt with, in the facts and
circumstances of each case and no straight-jacket formula
can be evolved. Further, the authorities did not adduce
evidence to prove that the Writ Petitioner was gainfully
employed during the period. The said circumstances, in our
view would be a relevant for determining the quantum of
backwages to be paid.
14) Further, the material on record would show that the
Commissioner, Tadepalligudem Municipality issued
proceedings dated 16.11.2000 approving the reinstatement of
K.Satyanarayana, who was working as a N.M.R. in the
Engineering Section of the Tadepalligudem Municipality, on
30.11.1992, by treating as if he has been in Service from
30.11.1992 and to pay backwages at the rate of 50%.
Similarly, the material on record would show that the
HCJ & CPKJ
W.A.Nos.1260 & 1264 of 2014
Commissioner, Tadepalligudem Municipality issued
proceedings dated 16.11.2000 approving the reinstatement of
J.B. Sivanand, who was working as a N.M.R. in the Lighting
Section of the Tadepalligudem Municipality, on 01.04.1992,
by treating as if he has been in Service from 01.04.1992 and
pay backwages at the rate of 50%.
15) Having regard to the orders referred to above and in
view of the judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Management of
Madhurantakam Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited vs. S.
Viswanathan1, and Hindustan Motors Limited vs. Tapan
Kumar Bhattacharya and others2, we direct the
respondents to pay backwages at the rate of 50% for the
concerned period. Accordingly, Writ Appeal No.1260 of 2014
is allowed to the extent indicated above; while Writ Appeal
No.1264 of 2014 filed by Tadepalligudem Municipality
challenging the reinstatement of the writ petitioner is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
All pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
MS / SM
[(2005) 3 SCC 193]
(2002) 6 SCC 41
HCJ & CPKJ
W.A.Nos.1260 & 1264 of 2014
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
W.A.Nos.1260 and 1264 of 2014
(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Praveen Kumar)
Date: 25.11.2021
MS / SM
