2. Heard Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as follows:
Petitioner was engaged as a Pump Mechanic under the
control of the 2nd respondent in the year 1992. Ever since the
date of his engagement in the year 1992, the petitioner was
discharging his duties with utmost satisfaction and
continuously worked without any interruption. Yet, his
services were illegally and orally terminated on 28.02.2002.
4. The petitioner along with another similarly placed
worker, namely Srinivas, approached the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.8583 of 2001, seeking
direction to the respondents No.2 to 4 to regularize their
services and also for payment of arrears 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 28.02.2002, without giving any notice nor paid any
compensation. The petitioner continuously worked and put in
more than 240 days and 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
2nd 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 before the 1st
respondent challenging the termination order passed by the
2nd respondent and for reinstatement of petitioner with
continuity of service and back wages. The 1st respondent
passed an Award, dated 20.02.2006 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
petitioner was not a regular workman and had not been
appointed by a competent authority to utilize his services.
Aggrieved by the said award, the present writ petition is filed.
6. The petitioner having been worked for about 10 years
continuously, terminating the petitioner without complying
with the Section 25-F of the Act, is illegal. Accordingly, prayed
to allow the Writ Petition.
7. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj filed a
counter affidavit and submits as follows:
That the petitioner was never engaged as an NMR and
was only engaged as a piece worker and his services have been
utilized as a driver only. The petitioner filed O.A.No.8583 of
2001 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal,
Hyderabad, seeking regularization of his services and the
Tribunal directed the petitioner to submit a detailed
representation to the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, the
petitioner submitted a representation before the 3rd respondent
and subsequently, the 3rd respondent rejected the claim of the
petitioner. Aggrieved by the rejection order, the petitioner filed
I.D.No.126 of 2003 for his reinstatement.
8. The petitioner was engaged temporarily and later his
services were terminated and that the petitioner never worked
for 240 days continuously. There is no order of appointment,
termination and no record regarding payment of wages and
thus, the petitioner cannot be considered for reinstatement in
terms of 25-F of the Act.
9. The 1st respondent relying upon the judgements of the
Hon'ble Apex Court, had categorically held that the petitioner
though worked on piece rate basis, the engagement itself from
the date of its inception of service, is illegal and therefore void
ab initio. According to the petitioner, he was appointed in
1992. But from 1984 onwards the Government departments
are banned for engaging NMR workers. The evidence W.W-2
before the 1st 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 cannot be regularized 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 Tribunal Cum-Labour Court, Warangal, vide
G.O.Rt.No. 725 Labour Employment Training & Factories (Lab-
1) Department, dated 10.04.2006.
11. Section 25(F) of the Act to be followed in cases where
there is an appointment by following certain procedure.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled for
notice under Section 25(F) of the Act. It is further submitted
that the Supreme Court in many cases held that:
"Regularization of services can only be done in
accordance with the Rules and not dehors the
Rules. Unless the appointments are made by
following the rules such appointees do not have
any right to claim permanent absorption in the
establishment. Even if an adhoc or casual
appointment is made in some contingency the
same should not be continued for long".
The latest Judgements are INDIAN LDRUGS &
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. WORKMEN, INDIAN DRUGS &
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. 2007 (1) SCC 408, and 2006 (4)
SCC page 1, STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. UMADEVI.
12. In the present case also, there is no sanctioned post and
petitioner was not appointed on regular basis. Hence, the
Industrial Tribunal rightly held that the alleged termination is
not illegal and petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement.
Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
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 240 days and the 2nd 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 1st respondent challenging the order of
termination. The said ID was dismissed by observing as
follows:
"17. In view of the above decisions I hold that the
petitioner though worked on piece rate basis, the
engagement itself from the date of its inception of service
is illegal and therefore void ab initio. According to his
petition, he was appointed in 1992, but from 1984
onwards the Government departments are banned for
engaging NMR workers. The evidence of W.W-2 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 cannot be either regularized or
countenanced. When their appointments are from back
door methods, their exists are through back door only.
Hence there cannot be any termination or appointment
orally or in writing in such cases. Hence these two
points are found in favour of the respondents and
against the petitioner."
14. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the
order of this Court in W.P.No.16984 of 2006. The said writ
petition is allowed with the following observations:
"17. Therefore, it is clear that the workman discharged
his initial onus of producing the documents in his
possession and sought the respondents to produce
payment register for the period from 1998 to February
2002. The management failed to produce the documents
sought for by the workman, though there is an order of
the Tribunal to that effect. Therefore, for non-production
of the documents by the respondents, an adverse
presumption has to be drawn in view of Section 114
illustration (g) of the Evidence Act.
21. At the cost of repetition in the present case, the
petitioner was engaged as driver on Government jeep, as
there was insufficient staff and to carrying out the works
pertaining to water supplying schemes including the
maintenance of hand pumps. The Executive Engineer
addressed letter under Ex.W-11 stating the
circumstances of their engagement and sought the
Superintendent Engineer to consider the representations
of the above three persons. Further, the petitioner, who
is a workman as described under Section 2(s) of the Act,
could prove based on the material evidence, that he
served for 240 days preceding the year of termination.
In these circumstances, and following the judgment of
the Apex Court (supra) in similar circumstances, I am of
the considered view that termination of the petitioner,
without complying the statutory provisions under Section
25-F of the Act, is illegal and contrary to the principles of
natural justice and the same needs to be set aside."
15. In the above case, petitioner therein filed IA No.396 of
2003 in ID No.129 of 2003 to direct the respondents to
produce the document i.e. payment register from January
1998 to February 2002. But the respondents failed to produce
the said payment register. Therefore, for non-production of
the document by the respondents, this Court had drawn an
adverse inference in view of Section 114 illustration (g) of the
Evidence Act. And also, the petitioner who is a workman as
described u/s 2(s) of the Act, could prove based on the
material evidence, that he served for 240 days preceding the
year of termination. In these circumstances, the termination
of the petitioner without compliance of the Section 25-F of the
Act, is illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice
and set aside the same. Aggrieved by the same, the authorities
filed W.A.No.461 of 2012 and the said Writ Appeal was
dismissed with the following observations:
"Having considered rival submissions made by the
counsel on either side, this Court is of the considered
view that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed
the Writ Petition preferred by the respondent/workman
with a specific observation that the respondent
/workman has put in more than 240 days of service in a
calendar year and admittedly, in the instant case the
respondent/workman has rendered more than 10 years
of continuous service, which would mean that the
respondent/workman is working against the sanctioned
post. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.16984 of 2006 dated 15.09.2011."
16. Moreover, in the above referred case, petitioner filed IA
for production of the payment register, but the respondent
authorities did not produce the same. In the said
circumstances, the Tribunal believed the contention of the
petitioner that he worked for 240 days. Whereas in the
present case, there is no such averment such as proving of
working period or payment of salary etc., With the said
observation, the referred case is not applicable to the case on
hand. Moreover, in the referred case, the petitioner worked
against the sanctioned post. Whereas in the present case, the
petitioner did not work against the sanctioned post and he was
not appointed on regular basis. As such, the Tribunal rightly
dismissed the ID, which needs no interference by this Court.
Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO,J
Date:07.11.2025
BDR
