B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE Singareni Collieries Company limited is in appeal before us assailing the order of the learned single Judge dated March 27, 2003 made in W. P. No. 12775 of 1995 whereunder the learned Judge dismissed the said writ petition filed by the appellant herein and accordingly confirmed the award passed by the Industrialtribunal in I. D. No. 16 of 1993.

( 2 ) THE facts now beyond the pale of controversy are few and may briefly be stated: the Second respondent-workman was appointed as Mazdoor in the appellant-company in Category-I with effect from 23/11/1964. Later, he was promoted to Category-IV in 1966 and category-V with effect from 1/06/1976. He became eligible for being promoted to category-VI. That he met with an accident on 14/12/1983 while working in the night shift of VI Incline, Godavarikhani. After recovery, the Medical Officer and Neuro surgeon issued a certificate of fitness dated 9/08/1984 certifying that he was fit for duty after taking rest for a period of one month. The Medical Board did not agree with the said certificate issued by the Medical Officer and declared him to be unfit to hold the post in category-V (underground) by its order dated 23/11/1984.

( 3 ) FOR whatever reasons, the services of the second respondent-workman were terminated on 17/03/1985 by the appellant company without even considering his case as to whether he was fit for being assigned any surface job. On the representation of the respondent workman the appellant company by an order dated 15/09/1985 reinstated him into the service and accordingly posted him as Fitter (category-IV) with effect from 16/09/1985 on surface for a period of two months. Thereafter his services were extended for another two months by an order dated November 29, 1985. On further extension, he remained and continued to discharge the same duties till 9/04/1986. Thereafter, he was regularly engaged from 15/04/1986 onwards on the surface job. He was even promoted to the post of Fitter (category-V) by an order dated 29/06/1989 with retrospective effect from 1/03/1989. Be that as it may, by an order dated 21/04/1988 the absence of the second respondent- workman from duties from 17/03/1985 to 10/09/1985 and intermittent artificial break up to 14/04/1986 were treated as leave on loss of pay for continuity of service and for the purpose of payment of gratuity. Aggrieved by the said order of the appellant-Company, the second respondent-Workman raised a dispute and ultimately the matter was referred to the industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act ).

( 4 ) THE Government of India, Ministry of labour by its order dated 29/03/1993 referred the following dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal: "whether the action of the management of Singareni Collieries company Ltd. Area-I, Ramagundam Division in denying continuity of service and pay protection to Sri Syed Khaja Pasha, Fitter, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

( 5 ) THE second respondent-workman filed a detailed claim statement before the Industrial tribunal attacking the decision of the appellant-company dated 21/04/1988 treating the period of absence from M 17/03/1985 to September 10, 1985 and also intermittent breaks during temporary appointments up to 14/04/1986 as leave on loss of pay for continuity of service and for the purpose of gratuity. The second respondent-workman inter alia raised the contention that the appellant-company should have considered the said period for continuity of service and as well as for all purposes including the seniority, promotion, pay fixation and other consequential benefits. The case of the second respondent-workman was that his juniors who were working in category-V as on the date of his termination have been promoted to category-VI and further promoted to c grade charge hand and, therefore, he is entitled to be treated on par with h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document