Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Chairman And Managing Director, 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: 264 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Kiranmayee Mandava)
Heard Sri Darsi Bala Raju, learned counsel for the appellants 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.22111 of 2005 in upholding the
order the Labour Court, Guntur, in I.D.No.291 of 1998 dated 22.02.2005.
3. The 2nd respondent was appointed as Wireman/Helper vide
proceedings dated 09.10.1996 in the petitioner's establishment. Three years
before his appointment as helper, the 2nd respondent had worked in the
petitioner's establishment on consolidated pay. The 2nd respondent was
removed from service, with effect from 31.03.1998. Aggrieved by the said
order, the 2nd respondent raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.291 of
1998. The petitioners filed its counter in the case, stating that the
2nd respondent was appointed as helper, for one year he was on probation,
the probation was extended from time to time up to 09.04.1998. Since the
2nd respondent did not improve his performance, his services were terminated
with effect from 31.03.1998. In I.D.No.291 of 1998, both the parties have led
in their respective evidence in support of their contentions. The learned
tribunal observed that the procedure laid down under the provisions of
Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as Act)
should be followed for retrenchment. The learned tribunal further observed
that termination of the respondent's services after the extended period of
probation on the ground that the workman's performance was not satisfactory,
is illegal. The learned tribunal vide order dated 22.02.2005 passed an award
observing that the termination of the 2nd respondent from his services is
unlawful and that the 2nd respondent was directed to be reinstated into
services with back wages and continuity of service, with 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 on the ground that the
procedure contemplated under Section 25 (F) of the Act has not been
followed.
5. The contention of the writ petitioner that the 2nd respondent is a
probationer 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. 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 appellants within three months from
the date of receipt of the order. Failing which the appellants 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
