( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed challenging the award of the Industrial tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, (hereinafter referred to as tribunal ) in I. D. No. 158 of 1991, dated 5-6-1993, whereby the Tribunal directed reinstatement of the 2nd respondent herein with back wages at Rs. 600/- per month till the date of reinstatement with continuity of service.

( 2 ) THE facts as referred to in the award of the Tribunal are as follows: the 2nd respondent-workman joined the services of the petitioners herein as temporary workman on 24-10-1987 at paderu Tribal Werlfare Divisional Office. He was deputed to the Circle Office (Office of the Superintendent Engineer, visakhapatnam), wherein he worked till 3-4-1991. He was transferred to Paderu and his services were terminated on 4-7-1991. The workman contended before the Tribunal that while he was paid Rs. 600/- per month, at the time of joining service, the same was later increased to Rs. 900/- per month and that he was being paid rs. 1200/- per month on the date of his termination. The workman was given promotion as Man Mazdoor in the year 1989 and in the said capacity, he continued in service till the date of his termination. It was his case that he was in continuous service without any break and that he was not given any notice at the time of termination of service. No enquiry was conducted nor he was paid compensation on the date of his removal from service. He also contended that he had continuously served for more than three years and that there were 20 persons juniors to him who were still continuing in the respondent department.

( 3 ) THE petitioner herein filed a written statement before the Tribunal contending that the workman had himself failed to attend duty after 4-7-1991 and as such the question of termination did not arise. The allegation that the petitioner was terminated from service was denied by the petitioners herein and it is stated that the workman had himself avoided attending duty at Paderu after 4-7-1991.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal framed the issue for its consideration, as to whether the workman had voluntarily absented himself from attending service or his services were terminated without notice or payment of compensation in lieu of notice and to what relief the workman was entitled.

( 5 ) THE Tribunal considered the evidence adduced by the workman including the Service Certificate Ex. W-1, according to which he had worked from 24-10-1987 till 30-9-1989 in the Tribal Welfare Section, visakhapatnam. The Tribunal also believed the oral evidence of the workman that he continuously worked from 24-10-1987 to 4-7-1991 inasmuch as the same was not denied in the written statement filed by the employer (petitioner in this writ petition ). The Tribunal considered the evidence of the Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, paderu, who deposed that the services of the workman and that of one Sri V. Ch. Baba in I. D. No. 159 of 1991, were terminated as the projects in which they worked were closed in the month of June, 1990 and that for want of work, the services of the workman were terminated and not on any other ground.

( 6 ) THE Tribunal held that this evidence adduced on behalf of the employer was contrary to the plea taken in the written statement filed by them and it was not their case in their written statement that for want of vacancy, the services of the workmen were terminated. On the other hand, it was their specific case in their written statement that the workman had voluntarily stopped attending work after 4-7-1991. The Tribunal held that the evidence adduced on behalf of the employer could not be considered as it was a new version. The Tribunal took note of the admission of the Executive Engineer that one month s notice was not given to the workman before termination of his services, that the workman had been deputed to work in the Office of Superintendent engineer, that he worked there from 27-8-1987 to 3-4-1991 and later was transferred to the Office of Execu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document