Chettipogu Pitchaiah alias Yesaiah Vs the State of Ap

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or orders or Direction mainly in the nature of Writ of certiorari by calling for the records pertaining to I.D.No. 171/1995 dated 24-09-2001 from the Labour Court, Guntur and quash the award as the same is bad, illegal, and violative of principles of natural justice, violative of Sec. 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act and consequently

¶19

direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner^{withbenefitsofcontinuity} of service and back wages.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybe} pleased to direct the respondents to re-instate the^{petitionerintoservice,} pending disposal of main Writ Petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. G SUBASH

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents; GP FOR LABOUR

¶24

The Court made the following order:

¶25

1

¶26

APHC010086512019

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶28

[3396]

¶29

MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO: 3868/2019

¶33

Between:

¶34

Chettipogu Pitchaiah Alias Yesaiah ...PETITIONER

¶35

AND

¶36

The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶38

1.G SUBASH

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR LABOUR (AP)

¶40

The Court made the following:

¶41

ORDER:

¶42

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution^ofIndiawith

¶43

the following prayer:

¶44

“ toissue a Writ or Order or orders or Direction mainly^{inthenatureofWritof} certiorari by calling for the records pertaining to^{I.D.No.171/1995dated24-09-} 2001 from the Labour Court, Guntur and quash the award^{asthesameisbad,} illegal, and violative of principles of natural Justice, violative of Sec.25-F of Industrial Disputes Act and consequently direct the^{respondentstoreinstatethe} petitioner with benefits of continuity of service and^{backwagesandpasssuch} other or orders ”

¶45

2

¶46

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-ll on behalf of learned Government Pleader for Labour, appearing for the respondents.

¶47

Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner worked as NMR luskar for different periods from 15.07.1982 to 30.04.1983, 01.09.1984 to 30.11.1984 and from 01.08.1985 to 30.11.1985 i - in Macherla Division Office. The petitioner being illiterate, he could not preserve the relevant record to show that he continuously worked for a period of 240 days. His father’s name is wrongly recorded under Exs.M2 to ry14. The respondents 3 and 4 failed to produce the muster rolls for the subsequent periods, where the petitioner worked. Learned counsel would place reliance on Ex.P5 to show that the petitioner worked for more than 240 days. In such a case, the Management has to follow Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act by issuing one month notice or by giving compensation. The termination of the petitioner from his service is illegal, Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has approached the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D.No.171 of 1995. The learned Judge of Labour Court passed the impugned award without considering the material placed on record. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with benefits of continuity of service and back-wages. The impugned award is bad and illegal and not tenable under law. Learned counsel would further submit that after the termination of the petitioner, he

¶48

3

¶49

jT

¶50

r could not get any alternative employment. Without^{followingdueprocessof} law, the petitioner was terminated. Learned counsel finally^{praystoallowthe} petition by setting aside the impugned award.

¶51

Learned Government Pleader for Labour would submit that the 4. questionsraised in the present petition are relating^{tofactualaspectsofthe} Learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court thoroughly^considered matter. the material placed in the ID and gave proper finding to^{theeffectthatthe} petitioner failed to prove that he worked continuously^{foraperiodof240days} to avail the benefit under Section 25F of the Industrial^DisputesAct. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that unless^theaward is perverse and illegal- the scope of judicial review against such^award is very limited. Learned Government Pleader finally submits that the^{writpetitionmaybe} dismissed as no grounds to interfere in the award.

¶52

Having heard the submissions of both sides, the point that would 5. emerge for determination is : Whether the impugned award is sustainable under law^or any interference of this Court is required while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution^of India?

¶53

can be seen from the impugned award which shows the respondents 6. engaged some persons for execution of certain works for specific have purpose for certain period i.e. Maintenance of Distributory^{SystemTemporary}

¶54

Plantation. Vana Mahosthavam schemes etc. The nature of the work would clearly indicate that the engagement of such persons will automatically expire on completion of the specific projects. There ISi no dispute about the fact that the respondents engaged the petitioner as casual labour on daily wage basis according to their requirement, As such, the petitioner attended as casual labour under Vana Mahosthavam Plantation during the years 1982 and 1983. The contention of the petitioner i IS that he worked in the respondent-industry from 15.07.1982 to 30.04.1983. That itself would show that he worked for more than 240 days.

¶55

/ ■ rer contra, the respondents contend that as per the Muster Rolls, which is the basis for payment of wages, would show that the petitioner worked only for 147 days. It is further argued that because of the correction made in Ex.P5, regarding the month in first speii, teamed Judge rightly disbelieved the said document.There is some force in the argument that because of the unexplained correction made in Ex.PS, learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court rightly placed reliance on the Muster Rolls to decide the period of service contributed by the petitioner to the respondent office. Accordingly, the Presiding Officer came to the conclusion on appreciation of the evidence placed before him in the enquiry to the effect that the petitioner worked for 147 days, so that he is not eligible to get the protection under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The impugned award would further indicate that the petitioner worked from 01.11.1982 to 31.03.1983 for 147 days. Though his

¶56

fathers name is not tallied under Exs.M2 and M4, the learned Judge considered that also and added 43 days and finally came to the conclusion that the petitioner worked only for 190 days. Needless to say that this Court is not sitting over the award of the Labour Court as an Appellate Court. As rightly put by learned Government Pleader the scope of judicial review over the impugned award is very limited, Unless it is a case of violation of principles of natural justice or perverse finding ignoring the important material placed on record, this Court cannot interfere in the award over the factual aspects of the matter, simply because the petitioner developed some documents to support his case. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any valid reason to interfere in the impugned award. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.There shall be no order as to costs.

¶57

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

//TRUE COPY//

// SECTION OJ=nCER

To,