Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The General Manager, vs The Presiding Officer, on 4 October, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT APPEAL NO: 486 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Kiranmayee Mandava)
Heard Sri Darsi Bala Raju, learned counsel for the appellant and
Sri M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
2. The Writ Appeal is preferred against the order of the learned single
Judge dated 08.12.2023 in W.P.No.13320 of 2005 in upholding the order the
Labour Court, Guntur, in I.D.No.275 of 1993 dated 29.11.2004.
3. The brief facts of the case are the 2nd respondent joined the service of
the writ petitioner on 17.01.1990 as worker in Agricultural Department. He
worked up to 01.07.1993. His service was terminated w.e.f.1-07-1993 .
Challenging the termination, the 2nd respondent raised an Industrial Dispute in
I.D.No.275 of 1993. The petitioner-management filed its counter in the case,
stating that the 2nd respondent was never employed by them. There was no
relationship of employee and employer. It was further stated that the writ
petitioner entrusted certain intermittent jobs to a contractor by name K.
Kameswara Rao. The 2nd respondent was engaged by the said contractor
from January 1991 to July 1991 and that the 2nd respondent had worked only
for 168 days during that period. It was further stated that the petitioner by
letter dated 30.06.1993 intimated that he had stopped working with them and
received P.F.Amount. The learned tribunal observed that the management
did not examine any one, to rebut the contention of the 2nd respondent that he
worked from 17.01.1990 to 01.07.1993. The documents filed by the writ
management would show the relationship between the 2nd respondent and the
management as an employee and employer. Thus the learned tribunal taking
into consideration of the submission made by the 2nd respondent that he was
paid Rs.900/- per month at the time of termination, directed the management
to reinstate the 2nd respondent into service with his last pay of Rs.900/- per
month and pay the back wages at the same rate from 01.07.1993 with
continuity of service and all attendant benefits.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Labour Court, the Management of
the Company filed the instant writ petition. The learned single Judge
confirmed the order of the learned tribunal.
5. The contention of the writ petitioner that the 2nd respondent was never
its employee was working under contractor and does not qualify or fall under
the definition of the workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Act was
held to be unsustainable. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge,
the instant appeal is filed.
6. The definition of "workman" as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Act
includes every person who is employed in any industry to do any manual,
skilled, unskilled, technical or supervisory work for hire or reward etc. Having
regard to the same, in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, without following the due procedure
contemplated therein, no workman could be terminated from service. In view
of the finding of the learned tribunal that without following the due procedure
provided under the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, the workman was
terminated from service, the order of the learned Tribunal was confirmed by
the learned single Judge of this Court. We do not find any perversity, either
in the order of the learned Labour Court or the learned single Judge.
7. The Writ appeal is accordingly allowed in part subject to condition that
50% of back wages are paid by the appellant within three months from the
date of receipt of the order. Failing which the appellant will be liable to pay
100% of the back wages along with interest calculated at 9% per annum.
8. The Writ Appeal in so far as it relates to plea against the reinstatement
stands dismissed and the reinstatement will take place within two (02) weeks
from the date of order. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________
JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
______________________________
JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
Date: 04.10.2024
ANI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
Date:04.10.2024
ANI
