Telangana High Court
WP/22972/1999 of RAGHAVENDR MODERN RICE MILL PEDDACHINTAK Vs CHAIRMAN APRANSCO HYD AND 2 on 15 November 1999
MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.22972 of 1999 ORDER: The 1st respondent approached the Union of India with a request to refer his dispute with the petitioner herein to the Industrial Tribunal. On a consideration of the same, the Central Government referred the matter to
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYWrit Petition No.22972 of 1999
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The 1[st] respondent approached the Union of India with arequest to refer his dispute with the petitioner herein to the IndustrialTribunal. On a consideration of the same, the Central Governmentreferred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal, the 2[nd] respondent, andthe same was taken up as I.D.No.17 of 1998. The dispute was, as towhether the action of the 1[st] petitioner herein in terminating the services of the 1[st] respondentwithout following the procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act (forshort ‘the Act’), is justified.
The 1[st] respondent pleaded that he was engaged as ExtraCasual Labour Gangman under the Permanent Way Inspector (PWI),in South Central Railway, Ongole, on 10.10.1976, and that he wasbeing paid daily wages @ Rs.4.50 ps. It was also stated that hisservices were being utilized as Carpenter Kalasi. He alleged that afterone Mr.Chennulu took over as PWI in November, 1978, he asked himsuddenly to work as a Gangman under a Maistry by name, Kondaiahand there he worked up to 10.03.1979. He was said to have beensubjected to medical test to ascertain his fitness. By narrating thesubsequent developments, the 1[st] respondent ultimately stated that he was orally retrenched witheffect from 02.04.1979. It was alleged that the procedure prescribedunder Section 25-F of the Act was not followed. On receiving thenotice, the petitioner opposed the claim of the 1[st] respondent. Through its award, dated 28.12.1998, the 2[nd] respondent held that thediscontinuation of the 1[st] respondent from work by the petitioner iscontrary to law and issue a direction to the petitioner to take him intocasual service afresh. The same is challenged in this writ petition.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.
The circumstances, under which this Court can interfere with anaward passed by the Labour Court, are very limited. In this case,though an attempt is made by the learned counsel for the petitioners toconvince this Court that there was no relationship of employer andemployee between the petitioner and the 1[st] respondent, the recordclearly discloses that the 1[st] respondent was included in the muster forquite a long time. He squarely answers the description of workman asdefined under the Act. Having regard to the length of the time forwhich, the 1[st] worked, he could not have been retrenched except byfollowing the procedure prescribed by law. Admittedly no suchprocedure was followed. The Industrial Tribunal has undertakenextensive discussion on the basis of the voluminous evidence placedbefore it to arrive at just and proper conclusions. The petitioner is notable to point out any perversity in the award or lack of jurisdiction in theTribunal.
Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no orderas costs.
Dt.29.06.2010.GJ
_____________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.