IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE AMARAVA O lA A 'A: - PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NOS: 22372 AND 35886 OF 201« WRIT PETITION NO: 22372 OF 201« Between: 1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Jagadamba Junction Branch Prakasaraopeta, Vishakhapatnam 2. 2. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office-I, Visakhapatnam Central, Balaji Nagar, Siripuram Vishakhapatnam. ...Petitioners AND 1. T Suresh Babu, S/o T.S. Sekhar, Door No. 6 Simhachalam, Vishakhapatnam - 530029. 2. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court At Hyderabad Represented by its Presiding Officer, Hyderabad. -169, Balaji Nagar, ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the High Court may connected with the Award the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith be pleased to call for the records relating to and in ID No. 48/2006, dated 01.08.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Central cum Labour Court at Hyderabad, by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order or Direction and quash Government Industrial Tribunal or set \ aside^ the same as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the evidence available on record. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 suspend the Award in I.D. No. 48/2006, dated 01.08.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the rriain Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S V DMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRI DARSI BALA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR WRIT PETITION NO: 35886 OF 2018 Between: T. Suresh Babu, S/o. T.S. Sekhar, Age, 38 years, Occ, Ex. Sub-Staff, R/o. Flat No. 401, III Floor, Aditya Vihar, Akulavari Veedhi, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam-530028. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Jagadamba Junction Branch, Prakasaraopet, Visakhapatnam. 2. The Asst. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office/Regional Office, Balajinagar, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam. ...Respondents 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 an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the quash the impugned award dated 01-08- nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI 2017 passed in I.D.No.48 of 2006 on the file of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, at Hyderabad, notified in so far as not granting back on 25-10-2017, wages and other consequential benefits and also giving liberty to the Respondents to terminate the petitioner service Illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently the petitioner prayed as this Honble court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay back wages along with continuity of service and all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play. lA NO: 1 OF 201« 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 suspend the impugned award dated 01-08-2017 made in I.D.No.48 of 2006, on the file of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, at Hyderabad, in so far as giving liberty to the Respondents to retrench the petitioner service pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and fair play otherwise the petitioner shall be put to irreparable loss and injury. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. DARSI BALA RAJU Counsel for the Respondents: M/S V UMA DEVI The Court made the following common order: 1 >> THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NOS.22372 AND 35886 OF 2018 COMMON ORDER: Since the subject matter in both the writ petitions is one and the same both the writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order. For the purpose of convenient sake, the parties are referred as arrayed in I.D.No.48 of 2006 before the Labour Court. 2. Impugning the very same award passed in I.D.No.48 of 2006, dated 01.08.2017, the claimant as well as the respondents preferred the above writ petitions aggrieved thereby. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as arrayed in I.D.No.48 of 2006 before the Labour Court. 3. W.P.No.22372 of 2018 is preferred by the Bank and W.P.No.35886 of 2018 is preferred by the claimant challenging the impugned award on the point that back-wages are not awarded and the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court made observation to the effect that the respondent-Bank is at liberty to initiate the proceedings for termination by following due process of law and as per Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Whereas the Bank preferred W.P.No.22372 of 2018 challenging the 4. award on the ground that without there being any evidence, learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court observed adverse findings that the individual 2 worked for five years in the Bank i.e. for 240 days per every year, documents marked on behalf of the claimant before the Labour Court, do not support such findings. In absence of any proof, the learned Judge has arrived such a conclusion that the individual worked in the Bank as Sub-Staff for five years i.e. for 240 days per every year. The Having heard the submissions of learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-bank and also learned counsel for the petitioner on behalf of the claimant and on keen perusal of the material placed on record, there is no dispute about the fact that the then Manager of the Bank was not examined before the Labour Court. But the present Manager as on the date of the enquiry, was examined as MW1. Needless to say that admitted facts either in the pleadings or in the evidence, need not be proved. MW1 before the Industrial Tribunal deposed in cross-examination that as per the vouchers- Ex.W4, workman was working in the respondent Bank for 240 days in a year. Though he denied the suggestion that the petitioner worked as a Sub-Staff from 07.09.2000 to 01.08.2005. But he has admitted several particulars of the petitioner in the cross-examination. MW1 further stated that as per Ex.W1, the respondent No.1 has asked respondent No.2 to avail the services of the petitioner as a one third employee. He pleaded ignorance as to whether the petitioner worked from 9.00 a.m. to 9.00 p.m. and can resumes that he was not the Manager of the Bank during the relevant period. Only as per the 5. 3 records, he deposed before the Labour Court. The nature of the duties which the petitioner used to discharge are perennial in nature. The respondent Bank is not maintaining any attendance register for the daily wage labour, casual labour and temporary employees like that of the petitioner, stated voluntarily that only attendance register is being maintained for the permanent employees. Non-maintenance of statutory records is violative of statutory provisions. Similarly situated employees like the petitioner regularized as per the requirement of the Bank. He pleaded ignorance as to the cadre strength of the Bank including the daily wages at the time of termination of the petitioner. That being so, in the light of the admission of MW1 further are MW1, it is clear that the petitioner worked for 240 days in a year as per Ex.W4. The learned Judge opined that the petitioner is entitled for the protection under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly allowed the petition and ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner, there is no admission by MW1 that the petitioner worked for five Of course, years in their Bank. Be that as it may, the evidence of the Bank Manager would show they never maintained any register for daily wages, temporary staff, casual labour like the petitioner. Such being the case, the Labour Court cannot that expect any more documents from the claimant, who worked Sub-Staff for some period in the Bank. as temporary The Bank never disowned the petitioner saying that the petitioner never worked in their Bank. In the light of 4 the evidence of MW1, the finding of the Court that the individual worked for 240 days as admitted by MW1 cannot be agitated. But, coming to the observation of the learned Judge that the petitioner worked for five years is unwarranted, in the absence of any evidence before the Labour Court. Coming to the claim of the petitioner in W.P.No.35886 of 2018, simply because the termination is in violation about 25 years, giving back wages is not automatic. The petitioner shall place on record the respective pleading and supporting evidence to the effect that he was not gainfully employed during such period and he remained idle because of the termination. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court exercised his discretion and denied the back-wages. Coming to the observation of the learned Judge regarding the liberty to the Bank authorities to retrench the petitioner only by following the procedure laid down for retrenchment under the relevant act, that observation is also not warranted. Even in the absence of such observation, when statute provides something, nobody can interfere and interpret or giving right to and denying the right to other. That being so, the observation of learned Judge is not warranted. 6. someone With the above observations, it is apposite to dismiss these two writ 7. petitions. 5 In the result, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order 8. as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SDI- V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// // SECTION OFFICER , To 1. One CC to M/s V Uma Devi Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri. Darsi Bala Raju Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCS to GP for Labour, High Court of Andhra Pradesh[OUT] 4. Three CD Copies GSC w HIGH COURT VJP.J DATED;29/04/2025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.22372 and 35886 of 2018 stands ^ 12 SEP 2025 m o» O rrentSectioDx'* DISMISSING THE WPS WITHOUT COSTS