Hanif Ahmed vs Union of India and Others

L.N. Reddy, J.—This writ appeal is filed against the order, dated 21.11.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 14352 of 2003 by the sole respondent in the writ petition.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the writ petition.

The petitioners were engaged as unskilled workers by the respondent. Complaining that they have been discontinued from service, in contravention of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, (for short ''the Act''), the petitioners and another person, by name, Yadagiri, filed W.P. No. 10267 of 1990. Initially, an interim order was passed on 19.07.1990, leaving it open to the petitioners to file a representation, and thereafter, the writ petition was disposed of, on 20.11.1990, leaving it open to them to pursue the remedies under the Act.

The petitioners filed I.D. Nos. 35 and 134 of 1991 before the Industrial Tribunal II-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad (for short ''the Tribunal'') and they have been renumbered as I.D. Nos. 29 and 28 of 2000. Through its award, dated 24.03.2003, the Tribunal held that the petitioners worked for 250 days between 28.09.1989 and 15.06.1990, but they are not entitled for the relief of reinstatement, since their initial appointment was not in accordance with the relevant service rules. Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the petitioners filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing that the petitioners be reinstated with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but denied back wages. The respondent filed the writ appeal, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge.

Heard Sri D. Ravishankar, learned counsel for the appellant/respondent, and Sri G. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners.

The petitioners have been pursuing their remedies since 1990. W.P. No. 10267 of 1990, filed by them and Mr. Yadagiri, was disposed of leaving it open to them to avail remedies under the Act. The I.Ds., filed by them, were pending for 12 years. Apart from deposing as witnesses, they have filed Exs. W.1 to W.15. On behalf the respondent, four witnesses were examined and Exs. M.1 to M.20 were filed. On a consideration of the same, the Tribunal recorded a finding as under:

Through Exs. M.17 to Ex. M.20 the respondent failed to prove that the petitioner in I.D. 28/2000 herein were engaged by the contractor Mr. S. Varma. So for the reasons mentioned above, I hold that the petitioner in each of the I.D. worked for more than 250 days in the respondent organisation within the period from 28th September 1989 to 15th June 1990 and each of them was engaged by the respondent-organisation.

The relief, however, was denied, only on the ground that the appointment of the petitioners was not in accordance with the relevant rules. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, . The learned Single Judge placed reliance upon various judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and came to the conclusion that once the petitioners have put in service of more than 240 days in 12 calendar months, they cannot be discontinued from service, except in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Act and since that was not followed, they are entitled for the relief.

Learned counsel for the appellant/respondent is not able to point out any specific rule, that deals with the appointment of unskilled workers. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi''s case (supra) would apply only to cases where a post, which is dealt with under the rules, has been filled otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

Secondly, the respondent was not consistent in its approach. It has already been mentioned that along with the petitioners, another worker, by name Yadagiri, filed W.P. No. 10267 of 1990. The writ petition was disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners therein to pursue remedies. Accordingly, the petitioners filed the I.Ds., in the year 1991 and on being satisfied that there exists a prima facie case, the Tribunal passed interim order, dated 21.02.1992, directing that they be taken into service. The respondent, however, filed W.P. No. 5501 of 1992 and got the order of the Tribunal stayed. Having exhibited such a hostile attitude towards petitioners, the respondent honoured the interim orders of that very nature, in respect of 18 employees, including Mr. Yadagiri, and took them into service.

Three months after the I.Ds., filed by the petitioners were dismissed, the respondent regularised the services of Yadagiri and others through orders, dated 21.07.2003, on the basis of a settlement deed, dated 08.07.2003. The relevant documents are placed before us and the respondent is not able to justify such a differential treatment. If at all the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi''s case (supra), came in the way of the relief if being granted to the petitioners, it is just un-understandable as to how other employees, who were similarly situated as the petitioners, were not only taken into service, but also were regularised.

We do not find any basis to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. In fact, the grievance should have been of the petitioners, as regards denial of back wages.

We, therefore, dismiss the writ appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.

The miscellaneous petitions filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.