TANUKU MUNICIPALITY Vs. S VENKATESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Municipality filed this writ petition questioning the correctness of the Award of the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D.No. 358 of 1990, dated 29-09-1995, wherein the Labour Court directed the Municipality to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and without back wages.

(2.) The 1st respondent was appointed as a Driver of Road Roller belonging to the Municipality on 26-09-1980 and his services were terminated on 22-12-1986. Thereafter the Union raised a dispute with regard to the termination of the services of the 1st respondent and after failure of the conciliation proceedings the dispute was referred to Labour Court, Guntur in I.D. No. 400 of 1987. While that I.D. was pending, the workman, after amendment to the I.D. Act by introducing Section 2-A(2) the respondent-workman filed I.D.No. 118 of 1988 in his individual capacity. Subsequently, having realized that two I.Ds cannot be maintained, he did not press for the disposal of the I.Ds. on merits. Thereafter, on 25-07-1989 the I.D filed at the instance of the Union seemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution and a nil award was passed and the Government published the award in the gazette. At a later stage, having come to know of the dismissal of the I.D. for non-prosecution, the first respondent raised I.D.No. 358 of 1990 and an award was passed on 29-09-1995 as indicated above.

(3.) The Counsel for the petitioner raised three contentions. The first respondent being a casual labour, is not entitled for reinstatement. This contention has no legs to stand in the light of the definition of workman in Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, wherein every person employed in an Industry in whatever capacity except in Supervisory Cadre has to be considered as workman and the provisions of the I.D. Act are applicable to them. Accordingly, the first contention is rejected.