SECRETARY I AND CAD DEPT Vs. K VIJAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the State Government and its authorities against the award dated 31-3-1997 passed in I.D. No.169 of 1994 on the file of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. By the impugned award the Labour Court set aside the termination of the services of the petitioner with effect from 6-10-1987 and directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service with continuity of service, seniority and all other benefits. However, the Labour Court denied back wages to the petitioner. The facts that led to filing of the I.D. No.169 of 1994 before the Labour Court be stated briefly as under:

(2.) Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the workman he examined himself as W.W.I and marked ten documents as Exhibits Ex.W-1 to W-10. On behalf of the management, one Mr. Rama Seshadri, Deputy Executive Engineer was examined as M.W.I and no documents were produced. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence recorded the finding that the services of the first respondent were terminated without following the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Act. In view of that finding, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court granted the reliefs, already noted above, to the first respondent workman.

(3.) Assailing the validity of the impugned award, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the learned Advocate General would contend that the Labour Court ought to have dismissed the I.D. instituted by the first respondent on the ground of laches and delay. The learned Government Pleader would next contend that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the I.D. instituted by the first respondent inasmuch as the proceeding of the Superintending Engineer, SLBC Circle No.1., G.V. Gudem, Nalgonda dated 23-9-1992 rejecting the claims of the first respondent and certain others became final in the absence of any challenge to the same in any legal proceeding. The learned Government Pleader would also contend that the first respondent is guilty of suppressing material facts before the Labour Court and, therefore, I.D. was liable to be dismissed solely on that ground. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the first respondent-workman would support the impugned award.