APHC010348042005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 7585/2005 Between: 1. MR.T.V.S.PRAKASH, S/O.SRI SURYARAO, R/O.DUSARAPAMU VILLAGE, RAJAVOMMANGI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE CHAIRMANCUMPRESIDING OFFICER ANR, THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, MANORANJAN COMPLEX, M-2 BLOCK, MJ ROAD, HYDERABAD. 2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK REGIONAL OFFICE KOSURI VARI STREET, KAKINADA EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...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 a) to call for the records pertaining to the Award dated 27/09/2004 in I.D.No.289 of 2002 passed by the Learned Respondent No.1 herein, by the issuance of a writ, more particularly one in the nature of certiorari, or, any other appropriate writ, order or Direction; b) quash the impugned Award, insofar as it denies the relief of reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service and all attendant benefits, to the petitioner herein, while holding the same, as bad, illegal, unjust, unfair, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as also violative of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; c) consequently, direct the 2nd respondent Bank to reinstate the petitioner with full back-wages, 2 CGR, J W.P.No.7585 of 2005 continuity of service and all other attendant benefits, treating him to be deemed to be in continuous service w.e.f. 29-4-2001; and pass such other order or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper on the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2005(WPMP 10070 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 direct the 2nd respondent Bank to allow the petitioner to resume his employment, forthwith, if necessary, at least on ad hoc basis and pass such other order or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GHANTA SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N RAMAMOHANA RAO 2. . The Court made the following: 3 CGR, J W.P.No.7585 of 2005 ORDER: 1. The present writ petition challenges the order dated 27.09.2004 passed in I.D.289 of 2002 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court at Hyderabad. The writ petitioner sought for reference of grievance in terms of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “I.D.Act”) for adjudication before the Tribunal, the Government accordingly by order dated 03.10.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication. The dispute under reference reads as under: “…That the Petitioner filed a claim statement stating that he worked in the bank on daily wages in 1992. He was engaged on daily wages by the Respondent from 1992. He worked for various number days and more so he worked from May, 2000 to April, 2001, for 288 days but yet, unceremoniously his services were terminated verbally from 29th April, 2001 without issuing him any notice or pay in lieu of or paying him retrenchment compensation. Hence, the verbal order dated 29.4.2001 is illegal, arbitrary and he may be directed to be reinstated and with full back wages.” 2. The case of the petitioner before Tribunal was that he was engaged on daily wage basis since 1992 at the respondent’s branch at Rajavommangi, East Godavari District and that he had put in sufficient number of working days, in particular, from May, 2000 to April, 2001 for about 288 days, therefore, respondents ought not to have unceremoniously terminated him from service and that too oral termination on 29.04.2001 without being compliance of the provisions of I. D. Act. 4 CGR, J W.P.No.7585 of 2005 3. To support his case, he himself was examined as WW.1 and marked Ex.W1 to Ex.W16. 4. The respondent/bank has taken stand that writ petitioner never worked with it’s branch, much less as daily wager, and also that no appointment order came to be produced. Further, the claim of petitioner that he has put up the required number of working days in a year has been disputed, which entitle petitioner’s protection under section 25-F of the I. D. Act. 5. To support their case, MW.1 and MW.2 came to be examined besides marking Ex.M1 to Ex.M3. 6. Eventually, the Tribunal after examining the evidence, both oral and documentary on record, answered the reference by holding that petitioner is entitled to be awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- plus Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation and rejected the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement into the service with all attendant benefits. 7. Heard, Ms. P. Karishma Khanam, learned counsel, representing Sri. Ghanta Sridhar, learned counsel for petitioner on record. None appears for the respondent/bank. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, drawn attention of this Court to the impugned order and also the evidence of the petitioner, coupled with 5 CGR, J W.P.No.7585 of 2005 the documents marked, to contend that despite placing sufficient material on record, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and render definitive findings on the aspects, in particular that petitioner had worked for 288 days in the year preceding oral termination, which entitle the petitioner protection under Section 25(F) of I.D.Act. As the Tribunal has not gone into the said aspect and mechanically answered the reference without any justifiable reason, the same suffers from perversity and the impugned order requires to be set aside. 9. On perusal of the impugned order, the Tribunal though has extensively referred to the contentions made by both workman as well as employer, and also referred to the oral and documentary evidence, but has really not gone into the core issue and tried to answer the reference in proper perspective. The Tribunal has answered the reference in one single Para. It is apt to refer Para No.9 of the order of Tribunal in this regard, which reads as under: “9. I have gone through Ex.W1, Ex.W2 to Ex.W13 and the amounts and dates were tallied. It cannot be said that all are fabricated. But since in view of the restrictions placed by the bank on employment, I am of the opinion that a lumpsum compensation would meet the ends of justice. Hence, the reference is answered as follows: “The action of the 6 CGR, J W.P.No.7585 of 2005 Management of Andhra Bank, Zonal Office, Kakinada in terminating the services of Shri T.V.S. Prakash, Ex.Temporary Sub-Staff, Rajavommangi branch w.e.f. 29.4.2001 is not legal and justified. However, in the circumstances, the Petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement but a lumpsum compensation of Rs.25,000/- plus Rs.2,000/- towards costs of this litigation should be paid to the Petitioner within 30 days after publication of this Award failing which he will be entitled to that amount with 6% interest P.A.” 10. This Court is of the opinion that despite sufficient evidence being placed on record, Tribunal has not applied it’s mind and rendered definitive findings as to whether the petitioner/workman had worked for minimum period of 240 days for him to take shelter under Section 25(F) of the I.D. Act and the termination of services would, therefore, circumscribed by the statutory protections under the I.D. Act. Except for referring to the Exhibits, without any reasoning, the Tribunal has proceeded to answer the reference. 11. In that view of the matter, the award so passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh on merits. The parties shall be given opportunity to advance their arguments and the Tribunal, thereafter, shall pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7 CGR, J W.P.No.7585 of 2005 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J Date: 26.02.2026 PBS 8 CGR, J W.P.No.7585 of 2005 101 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 7585 of 2005 Date: 26.02.2026 PBS