APHC010633492004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 19363 of 2004 Bench Sr.No:-6 [3506] Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Rep.by Its Prl. General Manager, and Others ...Petitioner(s) Vs. Smt A Vijayalakshmi and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate(s) for Petitioner(s): K NARSI REDDY Advocate for Respondent: R RAGHAMMA CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 13th November 2025 ORDER: Present writ petition is filed seeking following relief: “to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus to declare the award dated 12.04.2004 of the Hon’ble Central Government Industrial Tribunal – cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad, in LCID No.155/2002 as being illegal, null and void and pass such other order or orders” 2. Heard Sri K.Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners. None appears for the 1st respondent. 2 HCGR, J W.P. No.19363 of 2004 3. (a) The 1st respondent was initially engaged as casual mazdoor and later, she was selected on full-time basis by proceedings dated 22.08.1983. She stated to have worked continuously with the petitioners in Group D works as and when there was leave vacancy. However, she came to be disengaged from service in the month of August 1994. Later, she stated to have submitted representation on 09.08.1996 requesting the department to engage her as casual/part time employee in Hindi Section or any other office at Vijayawada, considering her financial status and obligation to sustain her children. (b) In furtherance, the Sub-Divisional Engineer has issued proceedings dated 28.09.1996 reengaging her as casual mazdoor on full-time basis in Hindi Section, where there was justification for a Group ‘D’ multifunctional post which related to the duties of water supply to staff, sweeping/cleaning and other class IV duties etc. In the said proceedings, it was stated that she would not be considered for regularization as a person who has been appointed for group ‘D’ category would have to be within age limit of 25 years at the time of sponsoring itself. She stated to have thereafter continuously worked in Hindi Section, however, she came to be later disengaged on 01.04.1999. She claims to have worked for 3 HCGR, J W.P. No.19363 of 2004 249 days in the year 1997 and 250 days in the year 1998 and 62 days in the year 1999 till her service came to be discontinued, therefore, challenging such termination, she instituted L.C.I.D. No.155/2002 under Section 2(A)(2) of I.D. Act, 1942, seeking reinstatement with all benefits. (c) The petitioners who were arrayed as respondents before the Tribunal filed counter opposing the case and inter alia contending that as she was engaged as casual mazdoor on regular basis based on the engagement letter dated 28.08.1996 which clearly provided that she would not be eligible for regularization or absorption in future inasmuch she crossed the age limit of 25 years as on the date of sponsoring, the claim made was wholly unsustainable. It was also contended that in terms of office circulars of the department, in particular, the circular dated 15.06.1999, the casual mazdoor could not be engaged for a period of more than 100 days in a year and hence, they were justified in terminating her. (d) Based on aforesaid pleadings and also the evidence adduced, both oral and documentary on either side, the Tribunal has ultimately come to conclusion that the workman did work for a minimum period of 240 days in the year 1997 and also 1998, 4 HCGR, J W.P. No.19363 of 2004 therefore, in terms of Section 25F of the Act, the procedure mandated therein was mandatorily required to be followed, which was lacking in the present case and hence, treating the nature of work to be perennial, the Tribunal has allowed I.D. by directing the department to reinstate her back into service within 30 days from publication of the award, failing which, she was entitled for the last pay drawn wages till reinstatement. It was further ordered that in case there was no work in the section where she earlier used to work, she be absorbed in some other section. (e) Assailing the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners mainly contended that the Tribunal had not considered the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the Department, in particular, the circulars placed on record in proper perspective and findings rendered, therefore, were clearly perverse. The circular dated 15.06.1999 clearly placed ban on engaging the services of casual mazdoor for a period of more than 100 days in an year, therefore, department was justified in terminating her services. 5. This Court, having given anxious consideration to aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for petitioners, is of the opinion that the findings recorded by tribunal are completely justified. Even 5 HCGR, J W.P. No.19363 of 2004 according to the petitioners, the letter of reengagement dated 28.08.1996 permitted the 1st respondent workman to work as casual mazdoor on full-time basis and that she has been continued to work so till her disengagement on 01.04.1999. The same has been confirmed by the petitioner’s witness i.e., M.W.1. As there is no denial or dispute regarding her continuous service of more than 240 days in the year 1997 and 1998, the rigours of Section 25F of the Act would automatically kick in. The tribunal has therefore concluded that the requirement of Section 25F, which was mandatory, was not followed in the present case and therefore, rightly has come to conclusion that the workman is entitled to be reinstatement. Though petition came to be instituted in the year 2002, the tribunal has thought it fit not to grant any back wages and it only has directed the department to reinstate back her into service within thirty days from the publication of the Award and failing which, she was entitled to receive last pay drawn wages till reinstatement. This Court does not find any infirmity with such finding of fact recorded. 6. Though learned counsel for petitioners tried to persuade this Court that the findings so recorded were perverse, this Court is not impressed with the said submission. 6 HCGR, J W.P. No.19363 of 2004 7. Insofar as the contention that circular dated 15.06.1999 (though referred as 12.02.1999 under Ex.M4) stated to have placed ban on engaging casual labourers for a period of more than 100 days in a year, the same, in the opinion of this Court, could have no application to the workman herein. At any rate, even if such restriction is placed, the entitlement and mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 25F of the Act cannot be whittled down, denying the workman the rights conferred therein. 8. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and the same stands dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 13.11.2025 SS