COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDERABAD HYD Vs. LABOUR COURT HYD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari calling for records relating to and connected with the award dated 14-8-1995 in ID No. 649 of 1993 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and to pass such other suitable order.

(2.) The Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad is the writ petitioner. It is stated that the second respondent herein, hereinafter referred to as 'the workman', was engaged by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation', on 1-9-1988 to do garden work on daily wage basis and he was being paid wages whenever he attended the work. It is also stated that the workman was very irregular and worked upto 30-9-1990 and absented a number of times from 1-9-1988 to 30-9-1990 and he never worked for a continuous period of more than 240 days at any spell and he used to absent himself without any prior permission or leave and he attended the work whenever it was convenient for him to do so. It is further stated that the workman left the work and absented from 1-9-1990 and after absenting for a period of eight months he approached again on 1-6-1991 and requested to re-engage him and after-being warned not to repeat the prior conduct, the workman was again permitted to work on daily wage with effect from 1-6-1991 and after working for some time as usual he absented himself without permission or leave and had abandoned his work from 28-3-1992 and he never turned up after 28-3-1992. It is further stated that having absented and voluntarily abandoned the work, the workman had approached the first respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'the Labour Court', by filing ID No. 649 of 1993 after a gap of nearly one year stating that he was terminated from service without following procedure contemplated under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short 'the Act'. It is further stated that the counter-affidavit filed before the Labour Court clearly demonstrates that the workman never worked continuously for 240 days. However, the Labour Court without considering the material available on record and the evidence of MW1 in proper perspective had passed the impugned award. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Sri Ganta Rama Rao, the learned Counsel representing the Corporation had submitted that there is no evidence to show that the workman had continuously worked for a period of 240 days and on the contrary the evidence of MW1 clearly establishes that the workman had never worked continuously for 240 days. It was also further contended that the workman had voluntarily abandoned to attend the duty and hence there is no question of invoking the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act. It was also contended that the Labour Court ought to have dismissed the ID inasmuch as the Corporation is not an industrial establishment and there is no motive whatsoever and hence the Corporation cannot be termed as an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to several observations made in the impugned award and had submitted that these findings are not based on any evidence or that these findings have been recorded though no sufficient evidence is available on record. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to the evidence of WW1 and also MW1 in this regard. It was also further contended that, at any rate, the Labour Court had committed a grave error in awarding full back wages without recording a finding whether the workman was otherwise gainfully employed during the relevant period or not. At any rate, in the facts and circumstances, the workman is not entitled to back wages at all.