HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.4613 of 2005 Date: June 23, 2010 Between:
G. Satyam, S/o. G. Chinnavadu, aged 49 years, NMR, O/o. Deputy Executive Engineer, Stores and Mech. Sub. Dvn., Hiramandalam, Srikakulam District … Petitioner And The Deputy Executive Engineer, Stores and Mech. Sub. Dvn., Hiramandalam, Srikakulam District, and two others … Respondents Order:
In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned validity of Notice No.2M, dated 19-02-2005, issued by the first respondent, Deputy Executive Engineer, Stores and Mechanical Sub-Division, Hiramandalam, Srikakulam District.
In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner joined as NMR in the year 1974 with the respondents and when his services were retrenched in the year 1989, he raised an industrial dispute, by filing I.D.No.50/1991 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. It is stated that the Tribunal passed award dated 25-09-1996 directing reinstatement of the petitioner without back-wages and continuity of service. As against the said award, respondents filed W.P.No.10475 of 1997 before this court, which was dismissed by order dated 04-07-2003.
It is the case of the petitioner that though there are no instructions from the Government as stated in the impugned notice; referring to instructions from the Government, the impugned notice for retrenchment of his services is issued. It is alleged that only to defeat the earlier orders of this court, the impugned notice is issued.
A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent. While denying various allegations made by the petitioner, in the counter affidavit, it is stated that the impugned notice is issued in compliance of the orders issued by the Government vide Memo No.E/120654/Estt.1/2003-12, dated 19-01-2005, to dispense with the services of the petitioner by following the provisions under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). While stating that the impugned notice is issued in compliance of the provision under Section 25-F of the Act and also the directions issued by the Government, it is averred that there are surplus workmen and some workmen are diverted to other departments. It is stated that there is no sufficient workload to provide work to the petitioner; as such the impugned notice is issued.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner has only worked as NMR with the respondents and is not appointed against any regular post. Although, the earlier order retrenching his services is set aside by the Tribunal by the award referred above and the same is confirmed by this court in the earlier round of litigation, but, as stated in the counter affidavit, there are surplus workmen and there is no workload. In such an event, I am of the view that it is always open to the respondents to comply the provision under Section 25-F of the Act and retrench the services of such surplus workmen, by issuing notice and also compensation for such retrenchment. A perusal of the impugned notice indicates that the petitioner is given one month’s notice for retrenchment and there is no order of retrenchment as such. Further, it is evident from the counter affidavit that there are directions from the Government for dispensing with the services of surplus workmen and in compliance thereto, the impugned notice is issued.
For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the impugned notice issued by the respondents. But, as much as it is stated in the counter affidavit that some surplus workmen have been transferred to other departments and their services are being utilized, I direct the respondents to avail the services of the petitioner also in any other department, as was done in the case of similarly- placed NMRs, subject to availability of work.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
(R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) June 23, 2010 MRR