HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT APPEAL No. 1975 OF 2005 04-08-2014 BETWEEN The Director, Central Tobacco Research Institute, Rajahmundry, E.G. District …Appellant And The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and another …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT APPEAL No. 1975 OF 2005
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
The unsuccessful petitioner in Writ Petition No. 27865 of 1998 filed this writ appeal.
The appellant is a Government of India organisation and is a unit of Indian Council for Agricultural Research. The 2nd respondent (for short ‘the respondent’) was employed as an office boy in the appellant in the year 1984. Alleging that he has been abruptly retrenched from service in the year 1990, he filed I.T.I.D No. 5 of 1996 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam (for short ‘the Labour Court’). It is stated that though he has put in more than 240 days of service in many years during which he worked, his service is terminated in contravention to Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). The I.D was opposed by the appellant stating that though the respondent was engaged between 1984 and 1990, he did not work for 240 days during any of these years. Through its Award dated 17-04-1998, the Labour Court held that the respondent was retrenched in contravention of Section 25-F of the Act and directed his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. Challenging the Award, the appellant filed the writ petition. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition, through order dated 06-07-2005. Hence, the writ appeal.
Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the respondent was engaged intermittently during six years, he never worked continuously for 240 days and there was no justification for the Labour Court to direct reinstatement. He submits that the learned single Judge did not take the important submissions into account and dismissed the writ petition.
None appeared for the respondent.
The appellant did not dispute that the respondent worked with them between 1984 and 1990. It was not even pleaded that any notice was issued to the respondent under Section 25-F or any amount in lieu of notice was paid. The plea raised by the appellant is that the respondent did not work continuously for 240 days in any year. In the affidavit filed in the writ petition, the particulars of the number of days during which he worked between 1984-85 and 1989-90 were furnished. In the year, 1987-88, the respondent is said to have worked for ‘235 man days’. Obviously, this is excluding the holidays. Otherwise, they would have simply stated as ‘days’. That type of counting of working days is contrary to law. The Labour Court and the learned single Judge have taken the correct view of the matter. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
The miscellaneous petitions pending in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 04-08-2014 ks