Y. V. ANJANEYULU, J.

( 1 ) SRI Ram Refrigeration Industries, Hyderabad is the petitioner herein. The award of the Labour Court, Hyderabad, respondent No. 2 herein, in 1. D. No. 70/79 passed on 27-8-81 is questioned in this writ petition.

( 2 ) THE petitioner employed respondent No. 1 as a temporary workman on 15-12-74. He was in service continuously till 8-2-75. He was retrenched on that date. The first respondent was again appointed on 19-12-75 as a temporary workman but this time he continued till 6-4-78 without any break. On 7-4-78 he was retrenched. The workman raised a dispute that his retrenchment was invalid. The Government in G. O. Ms. No. 547 dt. 7-8-79 referred the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act for short ). The following two questions were referred for adjudication. (1) Whether the management of Sri Ram Refrigeration Industries, balanagar is justified in terminating the services of Sri. K. Anji Reddy? (2) If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

( 3 ) THE labour court after considering all the evidence field that the order retrenching the workman from service on 7-4-78 is void. Accordingly the Labour Court held that the workman should be deemed to be continuing in service with all consequential benefits. It is this award that is assailed in the present writ petition.

( 4 ) THE first respondent workman initially challenged the retrenchment on two grounds. Firstly it was claimed that the management suspected that the workman was working actively for the Union and hence his services were terminated and the termination is therefore malafide. This contention was however not pursued before the labour court. The second contention was that the retrenchment is in violation of the provisions contained in Sec. 25-F of the Act. The Labour Court considered this plea and held in favour of the first respondent workman.

( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that the first respondent workman was not retrenched on 7-4-78 following the conditions specified in Sec. 25-F of the act. Mr. A. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner-management, endeavoured to raise a plea at the time of hearing that although it may be true to say that the employment of the workman was continuous, his service was not continuous in terms of Sec. 25-B of the Act. Learned counsel attempted to argue that unauthorised abstention from duty would amount to break in service and the Labour Court failed to consider this aspect of the matter. It is pointed out that before the Labour Court a claim was made by the petitioner management that the respondent workman was not in continuous service and in raising that plea the petitioner management had in mind that on account of unauthorised abstention from" duty the workman s service was not continuous according to Sec. 25-B of the Act I am afraid I cannot permit Mr. Krishna Murthy to raise this plea at this belated stage No ground was urged before the Labour Court that there was any unauthorised abstention from duty by the respondent workman. A vague contention was advanced that the workman was not in continuous service and consequently Sec. 25-F of the Act had no application. Management witness (1) in the Administrative Department of the management was examined and he admitted that the respondent workman had worked continuously from December, 1975 till 1978. Obviously this statement made by the management witness indicated without anything more to add to it, that the workman was in continuous service from December, 1975 till he was retrenched from service. No specific plea was raised that the service of the workman was not continuous for purposes of Sec. 25-B and Sec. 25-F of the act because of unauthorised abstention from duty. The Petitioner cannot be permitted to raise this plea at this belated stage. The contention is accordingly rejected.

( 6 ) THE next plea advanced by Mr. Krishna Murthy is to the effect that even if violation of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document