WP/26284/2006 of Dabetta Sammaiah, Vs The State Of A.P. rep.by on 28 December 2006

Order:

Assailing the award dated 13.06.2006, passed by the Labour Court, Warangal, inI.D. No. 90 of 2003, published in G.O. Rt. No. 1629, dated 27.07.2006, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

The petitioner claims that he was orally appointed as N.M.R. in the month ofDecember 1990 by respondents 1 and 2 to work in Mulugu Sub-Division ofWarangal Division on daily wages at the S.S.R. rates fixed by the District Collector,and he worked for more than 240 days continuously. He states that when therespondents without issuing any notice, orally terminated the services of theN.M.Rs., including his services on 01.04.1994, himself and others filed writ petitionin W.P. No. 7901 of 1994, and this Court disposed of the same directing them toapproach the Labour Court. The petitioner states that due to financial difficulty, hecould not approach the Labour Court immediately, and when the cases of similarlysituated persons, who approached the Labour Court and got favourable orders, werebeing considered for reinstatement, which in fact, were considered positively, hemade several representations requesting the respondents to extend the samebenefit to him also, but as no action was taken by the respondents thereon, heraised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 90 of 2003, and the Labour Court, by reasonof the award impugned herein, rejected the claim of the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleaderfor Roads and Buildings.

The parameters and scope of judicial review of this Court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari are limited to – firstly to correcterrors of jurisdiction when the inferior Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or inexcess or fails to exercise it, secondly correct errors of law apparent on the face ofthe record, and thirdly correct and interfere with the findings that are base onsuspicion, conjectures or surmises or no reason. It is within these parameters, theaward of the Labour Court has to be examined.

As can be seen from the award of the Labour Court, the petitioner to prove his claimthat he worked as N.M.R. under respondents 1 and 2 for more than 240 days in theyear preceding to the date of his termination i.e., 01.04.1994, mainly relied on theletters Exs.W1 to W5 addressed by the Deputy Executive Engineer to the ExecutiveEngineer. Though the letters Exs.W1 to W5 indicate that the Deputy ExecutiveEngineer has been addressing letters to the Executive Engineer from 01.04.1992onwards for ratification of his action and also to accord permission for engaging thepetitioner and others as labours, the fact remains, the Executive Engineer neveraccorded permission and never ratified the action of the Deputy Executive Engineer.Further, the letter correspondence do not disclose that the petitioner was directlyengaged by respondent Nos.1 and 2, and on the other hand, the correspondencediscloses that the petitioner along with others was engaged by the contractor forpetty works such as jungle clearance etc., and payments were made by thecontractors in pursuance of the proceedings issued by the Executive Engineer. On

the other hand, the documentary evidence, namely the cash books, nominal musterrolls for the relevant period i.e., from 1990 to 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.143, dated16.03.1984, produced by the respondents strengthens their contention that thepetitioner never worked under them in any cadre, much less in the cadre of N.M.R.,for nowhere the name of the petitioner is found. Further, a perusal of G.O. Ms. No.143, dated 16.03.1984, clearly indicates that there was a ban on recruitment ofN.M.R workers with effect from 16.03.1984, and in view of the prevalence of ban, thepetitioner cannot claim that he worked as N.M.R. with effect from December, 1990.Thus, considering the said circumstances, the Labour Court held that since theDeputy Executive Engineer without obtaining permission has himself assumedpowers and engaged the labourers, and as such, the appointments made by him,should be treated as illegal appointments. The Labour Court further held that sincethe petitioner never worked with the respondents, there was no relationship ofemployee and employer. This apart, it found that the petitioner raised the industrialdispute after lapse of 10 years from the date of his alleged termination. The findingsarrived at by the Labour Court being based on proper appreciation of evidence, noexception can be taken thereto. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot beallowed to contend that his termination is illegal, and more so when there is nowritten appointment order nor written termination order.

The award of the Labour Court, judged from the parameters of certiorarijurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, do not call forinterference, for the petitioner failed to point out any infirmities.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Nocosts.

Date: 28[th] December, 2006

Nsr

________________

N.V. RAMANA, J.