( 1 ) THE order of the first respondent-Additional industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal), in MP No. 263 of 1987, dated 11-6-1994, allowing the claim of the 2nd respondent for a sum of Rs. 7,837/-, is the subject matter of the challenge in this writ petition.

( 2 ) THIS Court, in WPMP No. 26691 of 1994 dated 08-12-1994, passed an interim order suspending the award passed by the tribunal on condition that the petitioner shall deposit half of the amount awarded by the tribunal within six weeks and that on such deposit it was open to the 2nd respondent to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.

( 3 ) SRI A. K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits thatthough the amount involved in the writ petition is negligible, only Rs. 7,837/-, out of which 50% was deposited by the petitioner and had already been withdrawn by the 2nd respondent herein, it was necessary that the questions of law, which arise for consideration in this writ petition, be decided since several cases of a similar nature are pending both before this Court and the Labour Courts/ industrial Tribunals. In all fairness, learned counsel submits that, irrespective of the result of the writ petition, the petitioner would forego and not make any further claim forthe amount already deposited pursuant to the interim directions of this Court, which amount has already been withdrawn by the 2nd respondent.

( 4 ) THE brief facts, necessary for the purpose of this writ petition, are that the 2nd respondent herein, (herein after referred to as the "workman"), was appointed as a watch mechanic with the petitioner herein, (hereinafter referred to as employer), on 20-1 -1977. It was his case before thetribunal that his services were terminated on 10-2-1984 without any notice, compensation and gratuity. The petition filed by him, under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes act (for short the Act ), was for payment of rs. 7,837/- comprised of (1) Rs. 675/-towards notice pay of one month, (2) Rs. 3,112/- towards gratuity for 8 years under the A. P. Shops and Establishments Act, (3) Rs. 2,700/- towards retrenchment compensation for 8 years and (4) Rs. 1,350/- towards 2 months salary as penalty for not paying gratuity within time, under the A. P. Shops and establishments Act.

( 5 ) THE employer contended before the tribunal that the petition filed by the workman, under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, was analogous to execution proceedings and hence was not maintainable and that the workman had no right to claim any amount since his services had not been terminated. The Employer further contended that the workman had worked for four years only, at a monthly salary of Rs. 625/-, and that he had to pay Rs. 1,200/- to the Employer towards the balance amount of loan taken earlier and when the Employer insisted, the workman suddenly left the services of the Employer in the 2nd week of December, 1984, without intimation. The allegation that the workman had worked from 20-11-1977 on a monthly salary of Rs. 675/- was denied contending that this submission was made only to show that he had worked for more than five years to enable him to claim gratuity. It was further contended that the workman had opened a shop of his own at Tupran and was carrying on his own business. The Employer contended that since the services of the workman had neither been terminated nor retrenched, the workman was not entitled to either retrenchment compensation or gratuity. It was further contended that the petition filed by the workman, after a lapse of three years, was only at the instigation of some of the other employees and was barred by time.

( 6 ) NO documentary evidence was let in by either of the parties. The workman examined himself as W. W. 1 and the Managing Partner of the Employer was examined as M. W. 1.

( 7 ) WHILE the workman contended that he worked from 20-1-1977 till 10-12-1984 on a monthly salary of Rs. 675/-,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document