APHC010268802005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 9382/2005 Between: 1. K.LOKANANDAM, S/O.LATE K.KRISHNAMA CHETTY FORMER SURVEYOR SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS. R/O. OF D.NO.4/96, SMALL STREET, ANWARDHIKHANPET-632502 ANWARDHIKHANPET-PO, ARKONAM TALUK, ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT GUNTUR. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS GUNTUR. 3. THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER DIRECTOR, SURVEY, SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, A.P. HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 any writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of CERTIORARI calling for the records of the 1st respondent pertaining to the award in I.d.no.98/2000 dt.2-9-2004 communicated by the Government of A.P. In G.O.Ms.No.1925, Labour Employment, Training and Factories (Lab.I) Department dt.15-10-2004, declare the same as illegal, arbitrary void contrary to Principles of natural justice and also Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; quash the findings in the said award in so far as accepting the alleged resignation with effect from 30-4-1967 which affects the right to get pension for the service rendered by me from 11-2-1955 to 30-4-1967 and direct the respondents to grant pension to me for the service rendered keeping in view of the recommendations in Letter Rc.A6/324/97 dt.29-9-1987 of the 2nd respondent recommending to sanction me pension and pass such other order or orders. IA NO: 1 OF 2005(WPMP 12293 OF 2005 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to fix an early date for disposal the writ petition since the petitioner is senior citizen and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A V S LAXMI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following order: The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Field Surveyor to work under the control of No.V, Survey party, Ongole with effect from 11.02.1955, which is the lowest cadre in the Survey and Lands Records Department and considered to be workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of I.D.Act, 1947. The petitioner was granted leave upto 30.04.1967 and he extended the leave till 31.08.1967. Subsequently, as the No.V, Survey party, Ongole was merged into the Survey and Lands Records Unit of Guntur and is under control of 2nd respondent, the petitioner reported for duty on 01.09.1967 (i.e., after expiry of leave) and requested the 2nd respondent for allotment of duties but did not get any response. After his prolonged persuasion for years, he was orally informed by the staff of 2nd respondent that an entry was recorded in Service Register accepting his resignation with effect from 30.04.1967. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed O.A.S.R.No.4969/1990 and M.A.No.1569/1990 on the file of the Hon’ble A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad which got dismissed on 12.03.1997 with the observations that the petitioner’s request to join back into service cannot be considered at that length of time and he is advised and directed to approach the government authorities for grant of pensionary benefits, if he is eligible as per rules. 2. It is the further case of the petitioner that, finding his service from 11.02.1955 to 30.04.1967 is sufficient for grant of pension, the 2nd respondent requested the Accountant General, A.P., Hyderabad for sanction of Rs.18/- as pension and Rs.528/- as gratuity to the petitioner. The Accountant General vide his letter dated 18.12.1997 observed that the petitioner is not eligible for pension and gratuity and returned the proposals with some objections and instructed the 2nd respondent to answer the objections. As the 2nd respondent did not respond, the petitioner issued legal notice to the 2nd respondent and the Accountant General on 24.01.1998 stating that he never resigned to the post and as per Rule 5 of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980, pension can be given on putting more than 10 years of service and Rule 26 of the said rules did not specify the forfeiture of right to pension and gratuity. Upon the receipt of the legal notice, the Accountant General instructed the 2nd respondent to examine the issue and the intimate the action taken. Instead the 2nd respondent issued memo dated 27.02.1998 stating that the petitioner is not eligible for pensionary benefits as per the letter of Accountant General dated 18.12.1997. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred appeal on 12.03.1998 to the Government of A.P., Revenue Department, Hyderabad to set aside the memo issued by 2nd respondent dated 27.02.1998 and to release pension benefits for the service rendered by him. 3. The said appeal was forwarded to the Director of Survey, Settlement and Land Records and got rejected by 3rd respondent under its order dated 29.04.1999. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Review Petition by registered post on 30.06.1999 before the Government of A.P., Revenue Department, Hyderabad but no orders were passed and communicated. Thereafter, upon the view that there is an industrial dispute about his non-employment and termination of services, the petitioner raised industrial dispute vide I.D.No.98/2000 on the file of 1st respondent wherein 2nd and 3rd respondents contested. The 1st respondent has issued an award dated 02.09.2004 rejecting the petitioner’s claim in I.D. holding that due to long silence, filing of I.D. after crossing the age of superannuation which severs master and servant relationship between the petitioner and the management and the resignation is accepted. The same was published vide G.O.Ms.No.1925, Labour, Employment, Training and Factories (Lab.I) Department dated 15.10.2004. Challenging the award of 1st respondent passed in I.D.No.98/2000 dated 02.09.2004, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. Heard Smt AVS Laxmi, learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, though the petitioner has not resigned to the post of Surveyor, he was not permitted to resume his duties from 01.09.1967 (after expiry of leave on 31.08.1967) and the finding of the 1st respondent that petitioner has resigned and resignation was accepted w.e.f. 30.4.1967 is only on presumption and has no credible evidence. She further submitted that, the 1st respondent while passing award dated 02.09.2004 has failed to note that there is no termination order or abandonment of service and acceptance of resignation by itself without putting into transmission would not bring an end to the relationship of master and servant. The alleged entry recorded in S.R. under Ex.M1 appears to have been done on the strength of F.R.18(2) of 1967, which is not justified and clearly violates the provisions of the Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and declared as void by Apex Court in such similar cases. She further submitted that, as per Rule 5 of A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980, pension can be given after putting more than 10 years of continuous service and Rule 26 of the said rules does not debar the consideration of service put in by person for the purpose of granting pension even in the event of accepting resignation. When the petitioner has worked from 11.05.1955 to 34.04.1967 i.e., for 12 years and is eligible for pensionary benefits, the objections raised by the Accountant General invoking Rule 26, denying pensionary benefits to the petitioner, is not justifiable. As such the award of the 1st respondent rejecting the petitioners claim is unsustainable and accordingly prayed to quash the same. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions. 7. The prime grievance of the petitioner is that after expiry of leave, he was not permitted to resume his duties on the ground that an entry was made marking his resignation in the Service Register. Aggrieved thereby, he filed petitions vide O.A.S.R.No.4969/1990 and M.A.No.1569/1990 before A.P.Administrative Tribunal, preferred an appeal and review before Government of A.P., but all those got rejected. As such he raised an industrial dispute under Sec 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 wherein the 1st respondent Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court had passed an award dated 02.09.2004 rejecting his claim for reinstatement into service and other benefits for pension and gratuity. 8. In the impugned award, the 1st respondent has stated that, the conduct of the petitioner in keeping silence for a long time from 1967 to 1990 without questioning the entry of resignation in his Service Register shows that he must have resigned from the job on 30.04.1967 and it was accepted otherwise, the petitioner would not have kept quiet. The petitioner contends that the entry of resignation and acceptance amounts to termination of his service and it comes under dismissal or discharge. Moreover, Section 2(s) of I.D.Act, 1947 defines workman as a person employed in any Industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operations, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward and includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched. The petitioner does not fall under the above said definition of the workman as he has resigned his job in 1967 and that resignation does not amount to dismissal, discharge retrenchment. In this case, the relationship between the workman and the management came to an end in 1967 itself, when he resigned. 9. The petitioner has filed the I.D. on 08.06.2000, when he is of 65 years. If a workman keeps quiet till he reaches superannuation, he is not entitled to raise a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, as he has no relationship between the workman and the employer and he cannot agitate for any of his rights under the said Act. The petitioner is not a layman and he cannot say that he was ignorant of his rights and further there is no evidence contrary to the said entry of petitioner’s resignation. As rightly held in the impugned award, the petitioner has not challenged the entry at the right time. If the workman was dismissed, discharged, retrenched or terminated from service illegally, he can be reinstated into service or in lieu of reinstatement, compensation may be awarded. In the instant case, such is not the situation as he has resigned from his service. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement into service or for any relief. In light of the above, the 1st respondent has rightly issued the award dated 02.09.2004 rejecting the petitioner’s case and the said award needs no interference of this Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS