HYD CONSTRUCTION CO LTD Vs. LABOUR COURT HYD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ Petitions arise out of one and the same award made by the Labour Court at Hyderabad in Industrial Dispute No. 160 of 1977 on i!s file. Hyderabad Construction Company Limited, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6090 of 1978, hereinafter referred to as the Company, embarked upon setting up Acetic Acid Plant at Hyderabad. For want of sufficient funds, the Plant, though installed, could not be commissioned into production. At the request of the Company, the Plant was taken on lease for a period of ten years commencing from 17-4-68 by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the A.P.I.D.C. For the purpose of runing the Plant, several persons were recruited and employed to various categories of posts. Smt. P. Kanaka Durga, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1917 of 1979, was one of such employees. She was first appointed as a casual sweeper for a period of two months from 1-6-1975 on payment of daily wages of Rs. 5/-. It was specifically stated in the order of her appointment that her services were liable to be terminated at any time during the period. She was, however, continued in service from time to time on the some terms and conditions. From 1-5-1976 she was being paid a consolidated salary of Rs. 200/- per month. On 4-9-1976 the General Secretary of the Workers' Union of the Plant addressed a letter to the General Manager of the Plant stating that her conduct and character were not satisfactory and that her continued absence in the premises of the Plant might lead to undesirable consequenes. On receipt of the letter, her services were terminated on 20-9-1976 without giving one month's notice to her and without paying one month's salary to her in lieu of notice. She was also not paid retrenchment compensation. She made repeated requests to the Management of the Plant, both orally and in writing, for reinstatement, but in vain. She unsuccessfully moved the Conciliation Officer for redress. Ultimately, by G.O.Ms. No, 1173, Labour Emplopment and Technical Education (Labour-I) Department dated 6-12-1967, the dispute between her and the Management was referred by the Government of Andbra Pradesb to the Labour Court at Hyderabad for adjudicaton. Before the Labour Court she prayed for reinstatement with full back wages. The Company was not a party to the dispute and the A.P.I D.C,, represented by its General Manager of the Plant, was the only party to the dispute. It was contended on behalf of the Management that she was a casual sweeper appointed initially for a period of two months on payment of daily wages, that her services, were extended from time to time on the same terms and conditions, that she was never in continuous service, that without casting any slur on her character and conduct, she was discharged from service and that she was not entitled to any of the reliefs asked for. After enquiry into the dispute, the Labour Court found that she was not a confirmed employee of the Plant, that after her initial appointment as casual sweeper for a period of two months, her services were continued from time to time giving her each time a tenure of two months, that on her representation she was appointed temporarily as a sweeper on a consolidated salary of Rs. 200/- from 1-5-1976, that she was, therefore, ncigther entitled to one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu of notice, nor to retrenchment compensation. The Labour Court, however, found that her discharge from service by the Management was nol termination simplicite or, but termination by way of punishmenti. It that view though she was denied back wages and other attendant benefits' the Management was directed to reinstate her in service. An award was accordingly passed by the Labour Court on 13-10-1978.

(2.) On the expiry of the lease between the Company and the A.P.I. D.C , the plant was handed over to the Company and a tripartite agreement between the Company, the A.P.I.D.C.. and the Government of Andhra Pradesh was entered into on 17-4-1978 setting out the terms and Conditions governing the rights and liabilities of the parties to the agreement. Pursuant to Clause 9 of the agreement, the Company absorbed in service of the plant all the employees who were actually working in the plant on the date of the agreement. As Smt. P Kanaka Durg, was not in actual service of plant, she was not absorbed in service. The Company, however, recieved G.O Ms _No . 1390, Labour, Employment and Technical Education (Labour-I) Department dated 14-11-1978 from the Department of Labour, Employment and Technical Education Department, enclosing a copy of the award passed by the, Labour Court, Hyderabad directing reinstatment of the petitioner in writ Petition No. 1917 of 1979 in service.

(3.) Aggrieved by the award, writ. PetitionNo. 6090 of 197 8 was filed by the Company praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the award. while Smt. P. Kanaka Durga filed Writ Petition No. 1917 of 1979 seeking relief of payment of full book wages and other attendant benefits. To both the Writ petitions, the A.P.I.D.C., was not impleaded as a Party. When the Writ Petitions came up for hearing we felt that for effective adjudication of the questions raised in both the Writ Petitions came up for hearing we felt that for effective adjudication of the questions raised in both the Writ Petitions. the A.P.I.D.C. should be impleaded as the 3rd respondent to both the Writ Petitions. Notice was accordingly issued to the A.P.T.D C. and on receipt of the notice the A.P.T.D.C , represented by its counsel filed county affidavits in both the Writ Petitions challenging the award passed by the Labour Court and disputing the claim of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1917 for payment of full back wages and for grant of other attendant benefits.