IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) r F MONDAY. THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA ^ WRIT PETITION NO: 3868 OF 2019 Between: Chettipogu Pitchaiah alias Yesaiah, S/o Saidaiah, aged about 52 years Occ. Labourer, R/o. Kesanupalli post, Dachepalli Mandal, Guntur Dist. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, Secretariat, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, Guntur, Guntur District 2. 3. The Superintending Engineer, NSPC Circle, Lingamguntia, Narsaraopet, Guntur District Executive Engineer, O and M Sub-Division. Macherla, Guntur District 4. ...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 a Writ or Order or orders or Direction mainly in the nature of Writ of certiorari by calling for the records pertaining to I.D.No. 171/1995 dated 24-09-2001 from the Labour Court, Guntur and quash the award as the same is bad, illegal, and violative of principles of natural justice, violative of Sec. 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with benefits of continuity of service and back wages. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 direct the respondents to re-instate the petitioner into service, pending disposal of main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. G SUBASH Counsel for the Respondents; GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010086512019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 3868/2019 Between: Chettipogu Pitchaiah Alias Yesaiah ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.G SUBASH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR LABOUR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “ toissue a Writ or Order or orders or Direction mainly in the nature of Writ of certiorari by calling for the records pertaining to I.D.No.171/1995 dated 24-09- 2001 from the Labour Court, Guntur and quash the award as the same is bad, illegal, and violative of principles of natural Justice, violative of Sec.25-F of Industrial Disputes Act and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with benefits of continuity of service and back wages and pass such other or orders ” 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the Pleader for Services-ll appearing for the respondents. petitioner and learned Government on behalf of learned Government Pleader for Labour, 3. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner for different periods from 15.07.1982 and from 01.08.1985 to 30.11.1985 i being illiterate, he could not continuously worked for recorded under Exs.M2 to ry14. The muster rolls for the subsequent periods, where the counsel would place reliance more than 240 days. In such a worked as NMR luskar to 30.04.1983, 01.09.1984 to 30.11.1984 - in Macherla Division Office. The petitioner preserve the relevant record to show that he a period of 240 days. His father’s name is wrongly respondents 3 and 4 failed to produce the petitioner worked. Learned on Ex.P5 to show that the petitioner worked for case, the Management has to follow Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act by issuing one month notice or by giving compensation. The termination of the petitioner from his service is illegal, petitioner has approached the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D.No.171 of 1995. The learned Judge of Labour Court passed the impugned award without considering the material placed on record. Learned counsel would further submit that the Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with benefits of continuity of service and back-wages. The impugned award is bad and illegal and not tenable under law. Learned counsel would further submit that after the termination of the petitioner, he jT r could not get any alternative employment. Without following due process of the petitioner was terminated. Learned counsel finally prays to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned award. Learned Government Pleader for Labour would submit that the questionsraised in the present petition are relating to factual aspects of the Learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court thoroughly considered material placed in the ID and gave proper finding to the effect that the petitioner failed to prove that he worked continuously for a period of 240 days avail the benefit under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that unless the award is perverse and illegal- the scope of judicial review against such award is very limited. Learned Government Pleader finally submits that the writ petition may be dismissed as no grounds to interfere in the award. 3 law, 4. matter. the to Having heard the submissions of both sides, the point that would 5. emerge for determination is : Whether the impugned award is sustainable under law or any interference of this Court is required while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? can be seen from the impugned award which shows the respondents engaged some persons for execution of certain works for specific purpose for certain period i.e. Maintenance of Distributory System Temporary 6. have Plantation. Vana Mahosthavam clearly indicate that the schemes etc. The nature of the work would engagement of such persons will automatically expire no dispute about the fact that on completion of the specific projects. There iIS the respondents engaged the petitioner according to their requirement, labour under Vana Mahosthavam Plantation The contention of the petitioner i from 15.07.1982 to 30.04.1983. more than 240 days. as casual labour on daily wage basis As such, the petitioner attended as casual during the years 1982 and 1983. IS that he worked in the respondent-industry That itself would show that he worked for / ■ rer contra, the respondents contend that is the basis for payment of wages, would show that the for 147 days. It is further argued that because of as per the Muster Rolls, which petitioner worked only the correction made in Ex.P5, regarding the month in first speii, teamed Judge rightly disbelieved the said document.There is some force in the argument that because of the unexplained correction made in Ex.PS, learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court rightly placed reliance on the Muster Rolls to decide the period of service contributed by the petitioner to the respondent office. Accordingly, the Presiding Officer came to the conclusion on appreciation of the evidence placed before him in the enquiry to the effect that the petitioner worked days, so that he is not eligible to get the protection for 147 under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The impugned award would further indicate that the petitioner worked from 01.11.1982 to 31.03.1983 for 147 days. Though his fathers name is not tallied under Exs.M2 and M4, the learned Judge came to the conclusion to say that this Court is as an Appellate Court. As the scope of judicial review Unless it is a case of violation of considered that also and added 43 days and finally that the petitioner worked only for 190 days. Needless not sitting over the award of the Labour Court rightly put by learned Government Pleader over the impugned award is very limited, principles of natural justice or perverse finding ignoring the important material placed on record, this Court cannot interfere in the award over the factual aspects of the matter, simply because the petitioner developed some documents to support his case. Viewed from find any valid reason to interfere in the impugned award. any angle, this Court does not Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.There shall be 8. no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. // SECTION OJ=nCER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. One CC to Sri. G Subash Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Labour, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED: 16/06/2025 \ ORDER WP.No.3868 of 2019 Of ko g( I0SEP20/5 rrentSectwo. rrt Co <S DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS