APHC010056612011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 18014/2011 Between: Smt. G. Kanaka Mahalakshmi, Visakhapatnam ...PETITIONER AND The Asst G M Bank Of Baroda Hyd 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A V S LAXMI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SATYANARAYANA DHARA 2. The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is challenging the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in L.C.I.D.No.133 of 2004 dated 24.11.2010. 3. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent No.2 as Lady workman/sweeper on 10.02.1992 on weekly wage basis. The services of the petitioner were changed to monthly wage basis. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent No.2 authority had terminated the services of the petitioner with effect from 31.07.2002. The petitioner made representations seeking reinstatement. However, as the respondent No.2 did not consider the representations of the petitioner has filed L.C.I.D.No.133 of 2004. The Labour Court has considered the issue elaborately and dismissed the claim of the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Regional Manager on 21.05.1999 has addressed a letter acknowledging the sincere support and co-operation rendered by the petitioner to the Respondent Bank during the course of his employment from 10.02.1992 to 31.07.2002 and submits that the said letter was not considered. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled for regularization of his service and the Respondent Bank has violated the compliance of Section 25F of the ID Act. 5. No counter is filed by the respondents. 3 6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was not engaged against any existing vacancy and her engagement was purely on casual basis and that to as and when there was work for the petitioner. It is also submitted that there was no order of appointment, as such there was also no order of termination. 7. It is also pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Bank that the petitioner has failed to furnish any document before the Labour Court, except for the representations and a copy of letter dated 21.05.1999 from Regional Manager to the petitioner there is no other document filed to substantiate the claim of the petitioner seeking regularization of her service. 8. Considering the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and as seen from the award, it is evident that the petitioner has not submitted any document to substantiate her claim that she worked more than 3650 days from the date of joining and that she completed more than 240 days in a year. The reliance of the petitioner on the letter dated 21.05.1999 also would not come to the rescue of the petitioner as the same is discussed by the Labour Court in the award wherein the Regional Manager informed the petitioner about his overseas posting to U.K. and thanking the petitioner for her support and co-operation. The said document cannot bestow the Fundamental Right on the petitioner to claim for regularization of her services in the absence of any cogent evidence to substantiate her service as claimed this Court cannot interfere with the well reasoned award. No valid grounds are 4 setup by the petitioner for this Court to dislodge the well considered award of the Labour Court. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 07.01.2025 PNS