MADDIREDDY VENKATA SIVA NAGA Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ Petition is filed assailing the Award dated 10.07.2007 in I.D. No. 138 of 2003 on the file of the third respondent-Labour Court, which, in its turn, returned a 'nil' award, upholding the Order of oral termination said to have passed against the petitioner by the respondent Authorities. The facts, in brief, as pleaded by the petitioner, are that the petitioner joined as Motivator in the first respondent Municipality on 01.04.1988 in Engineering Section and worked as such till 31.03.1992. Though he had been discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the Management, abruptly the authorities orally terminated his services on 01.04.1992 without assigning any reasons whatsoever. It being in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for brevity), the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D. No. 138 of 2003 on the file of the Labour Court, which in turn rendered an Award dated 10.07.2007, dismissing the claim of the petitioner, holding that the petitioner did not complete 240 days of continuous service in the respondent Corporation to be considered within the scope of 25-F of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

(2.) The first respondent-Municipal Commissioner filed its Counter affidavit opposing the claim of the petitioner. Incidentally, a perusal of it shows that it contains a faithful traversal of the contentions of the petitioner but nothing beyond. In other words, every plea on the part of the petitioner has been denied by the first respondent, but no positive countervailing plea has been taken to sustain the Award of the Labour Court.

(3.) Be that as it may, supporting the findings of the Labour Court in the impugned Award, the first respondent has contended that though the petitioner is treated to have worked from 01.04.1988 to 31.03.1992, there is no material to establish that he continuously worked for 240 days to consider his case under the provisions of the Act. Thus, it is contended that the Labour Court has rightly repelled the contention of the petitioner and refused the relief in a just and proper manner.