SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER IRRIGATION CIRCLE DEPARTMENT Vs. B SATHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 29. 09. 2004 passed by the learned Single judge in Writ Petition No. 12413 of 2000, whereby he declined to interfere with award dated 26. 02. 2000 passed by the Presiding officer of Labour Court-Ill, Hyderabad (hereinafter described as 'the Labour Court')for re-appointment of respondent No. 1 as mazdoor or equivalent post with service benefits from the date of filing of application under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') i. e. 13. 7. 1995.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 was engaged as daily wage Mazdoor in the Irrigation Department, moosi Canal Sub-Division, Suryapet on 19. 11. 1963. His service was terminated with effect from 1. 6. 1967 after giving him one month's notice and retrenchment compensation. On 25. 5. 1976, he was offered re-appointment as Mazdoor, but he did not avail the same. Subsequently, on a request made by him, Divisional Executive Engineer, nalgonda, vide his order No. C. A 10/6476-60, dated 3. 8. 1976 appointed respondent No. 1 as Telephone Operator in the work-charge establishment. However, when respondent no. 1 reported for duty, Assistant Engineer, ib Canal Sub-Division refused to accept the same on the premise that he was working as a civil contractor with the department. Respondent No. 1 represented for reconsideration of his case. He was given favourable assurance, but nothing tangible happened. He then filed an application under section 2-A (2) of the Act for his reinstatement as Telephone Operator by asserting that he was wrongfully denied from joining the place of posting and that despite assurance given for reconsideration of his case, the concerned officer did not appoint him. He also pleaded that persons junior to him had been offered re-appointment without considering his case and, in this manner, he had been discriminated.

(3.) IN the counter filed on behalf of the opposite parties (the appellants herein), it was averred that joining report of the workman (respondent No. 1 herein) was not accepted in 1976 because at the relevant time, he was working as contractor with the department and, thereafter, he could not be appointed in view of the ban imposed by the State government vide G. O. Ms. No. 130, dated 18. 03. 1981 on fresh appointment/ engagement.