Telangana High Court
WP/19318/1999 of K.Laxminarsaiah, Vs The Labour Court-II, on 31 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:19318 of 1999 Between: K.Laxminarsaiah ..... PETITIONER AND The Labour Court-II
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO:19318of1999
Between:
K.Laxminarsaiah
AND
..... PETITIONER
The Labour Court-II and others
.....RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. V.NARASIMHA GOUD
Counsel for the respondents:GP FOR LABOUR
The Court made the following :
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash award,dated 01.04.1997 passed in I.D.No.214 of 1993 to the extent of denyingback wages and directing reinstatement of the petitioner as a freshcandidate.
Page 1 of 2
The petitioner, who was a daily wage labourer with respondentNos.2 to 4, raised an industrial dispute following his retrenchment. Respondent No.1, who entertained and disposed of the disputeregistered as I.D.No.214 of 1993 (I.D.No.221/90 (old)), on an analysis ofthe material available before it, held that the petitioner had worked for acontinuous period of 240 days and his services were terminated withoutfollowing the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (for short ‘the Act’). However, respondent No.1 while holding thatthe petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service, verycuriously, further held that he is entitled to reinstatement as a freshcandidate. The direction given by respondent No.1 to reinstate thepetitioner as a fresh candidate is in conflict with his own reasoning andobservation that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with continuityof service. Therefore, the order to the extent of directing the petitioner’sreinstatement as a fresh candidate cannot be sustained and isaccordingly, set aside. Though the learned counsel for the petitionerpressed for payment of back wages, in my considered view, respondentNo.1 applied its mind and exercised its discretion against granting sucha relief. Having regard to the facts of this case, I am of the view that theaward to that extent does not require interference by this Court.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed inpart and the direction given by respondent No.1 to the extent ofpetitioner’s reinstatement as a fresh candidate is set aside. Thepetitioner shall be deemed to have been reinstated with continuity ofservice without back wages.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
31[st] DECEMBER, 2008.
kvni
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…