S Shankar, Mahaboobnagar Dist vs Superintending Engineer, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 367 Tel

   THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                        AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

    WRIT APPEAL Nos.1646 & 1573 of 2012 and 163 of 2013

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)

        The present writ appeals are arising out of a common order

dated      07.08.2012      passed     by    the    learned     Single    Judge   in

W.P.Nos.6080, 6092 and 6094 of 2001 and they are being disposed

of by a common order, as the facts involved in all three cases are

similar.

        The facts of W.A.No.1646 of 2012 are reproduced as under:-

        The appellant before this Court was appointed as a Daily

Wager at the rate of Rs.14/- per day on 26.02.1988. His services

were put to an end on 28.06.1989.                    After discontinuance, he

submitted a representation to the employer. However, he was not

reinstated. He raised an Industrial Dispute and finally, an award

was passed in I.D.No.183 of 1996 on 20.10.2000 directing

reinstatement of the appellant/workman without back wages. The

appellant/workman was reinstated by the employer in the year

2001. At the same time, the employer/writ petitioner preferred a

writ petition challenging the validity of the award passed by the

Labour Court and three writ petitions were registered in three

identical cases i.e., W.P.Nos.6080, 6092 and 6094 of 2001. The

learned Single Judge has finally decided the matters by awarding a

sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the workmen. The judgment was

delivered on 07.08.2012.

        Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/workman has

stated before this Court that an erroneous finding of fact has been
                                        2




arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the appellant/workman

has not put in 240 days of service in a calendar year.                    He has

straight away drawn the attention of this Court towards the award

passed by the Labour Court and the relevant portion of the award

dated 20.10.2000 passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.183 of

1996 is reproduced as under:-

             "Ex.M1 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the
     petitioner. In his cross-examination the witness stated that he is
     deposing as per the records.          That the petitioner worked at
     Revulapally Sub-Division No.1 at PJP.       That the witness join as
     D.E.E. in the respondent department in the month of September

1997. He stated that the salary of the petitioner on daily wage basis was paid at the initial period at the rate of Rs.14/- per day, and the last wage drawn by the petitioner was Rs.16.10 ps per day. He also mentioned the period of work of the petitioner in his organisation as from 26.2.88 to 25.6.89 totalling about 469 days as per Ex.M1. He denied the suggestion on behalf of the petitioner the respondent informed the petitioner not to attend the duties from July, 1989 onwards. That the respondent has received Ex.W1 and he is not aware whether the respondent has given reply to Ex.W1. That he do no know with regard to W.P.No.6274/88 filed by the petitioner before the Hon'ble High Court with regard to their regularisation and also not aware about the interim directions granted by the Hon'ble High Court in the said writ petition to continue as N.M.R. He denied the suggestion that after filing of the above writ petition the management terminated the services of the petitioner. He also stated that he do not know with regard to I.D.No.334/93 which was filed by Mr. Venkataiah before this court challenging the termination order, wherein this court directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with back-wages and all other attendant benefits. He also stated that he do not know whether the attendance register was maintained by the respondent or not. He stated that Ex.M1, which marked through his evidence is prepared by the Jr. Asst., of his office on 10.9.96 for the purpose of record. He denied the suggestion that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with all attendant benefits. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

Meaning thereby, based upon the evidence adduced by the

parties, a finding of fact was arrived at by the Labour Court that

the workman has certainly put in more than 240 days of service in

a calendar year and there was violation of Section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). Hence, the

Labour Court had directed reinstatement of the

appellant/workman.

The most important aspect of the case is that the

employer/writ petitioner/respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the present

writ appeal, while complying with Section 17-B of the Act,

reinstated the workman in the year 2001 and till date, the

workman is continuing as a Daily Wager, as this Court has stayed

the order passed by the learned Single judge. Meaning thereby,

the workman is in service as a Daily Wager right from 1988. At this

juncture, the question of granting compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-,

as directed by the learned Single Judge, does not arise.

It is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments

delivered in the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph

(Traffic) Bhopal vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and others1 as well as

in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Man Singh2

has granted compensation to the workmen therein. However, the

present case is distinguishable on facts. The workman has

certainly put in 240 days of service in a calendar year and he was

terminated contrary to the statutory provisions as contained under

the Act. There was violation of Section 25-F of the Act and

therefore, the Labour Court was justified in passing an award

directing reinstatement of the workman. This Court is of the

considered opinion that the impugned common order passed by

(2010) 6 SCC 773

(2012) 1 SCC 558

the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and is

accordingly set aside.

Resultantly, the writ appeals stand allowed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

01.02.2022 JSU