Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1734
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J.
Nalla Ravinder – Appellant
Versus
Industrial Tribunalcumlabour Court And 3 Others – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 17024 of 2006
Decided On : 07-11-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A K JAYAPRAKASH RAO
For the Respondent: GP FOR LABOUR
Engagement of workers contrary to government rules results in void appointments; persons not legally appointed cannot claim protections or rights under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act - Section 2(s) and Section 25-F - Employment termination - The appellant challenged termination as unlawful due to lack of compliance with Section 25-F, claiming continuous service beyond 240 days - Tribunal ruled against appellant, asserting he was not a 'workman' under the Act - No authorized engagement or compliance with statutory provisions observed. (Paras 5, 11, 13, 17)
(B) Employment eligibility - Engagement of workers contrary to government rules leads to void appointments - Non-regularized service cannot invoke statutory protections. (Paras 9, 13)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was employed as a Pump Mechanic in 1992 and claimed unlawful termination in 2002 without notice or compensation, despite working over 240 days. He contested the termination, which was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal, deeming him not a regular workman.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's decision that the appellant’s employment was illegal and void ab initio due to non-compliance with rules was upheld.
Issues: The legitimacy of the termination under statutory provisions and the definition of 'workman.'
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that the appellant’s piece rate engagement was invalid as government departments are prohibited from engaging NMR workers post-1984.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim of unjust termination (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments rebutting the claim (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's reasoning on statutory compliance (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. dismissal of the writ petition (Para 17) |
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:-
“….to call for the records from the 1st respondent in I.D.No.126 of 2003, and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and quash the Award passed by the 1st respondent in I.D.No.126 of 2003, dated 20.02.2006, published on 18.04.2006, dismissing the claim made by the petitioner as illegal, unjust, contrary to law and perverse, and grant the relief of reinstatement into service with wages and all other consequential benefits and pass…”
2. Heard Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, appearing for respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as follows:
Petitioner was engaged as a Pump Mechanic under the control of the 2nd respondent in the year 1992. Ever since the date of his engagement in the year 1992, the petitioner was discharging his duties with utmost satisfaction and continuously worked without any interruption. Yet, his services were illegally and orally terminated on 28.02.2002.
4. The petitioner along with another similarly placed worker, namely Srinivas, approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.8583 of 2001, seeking direction to the respondents No.2 to 4 to regularize their services and also for payment of arrears from 01.10.2000 onwards. Though there was a direction from the said Tribunal to continue the petitioner in service, the respondents illegally terminated the petitioner’s services abruptly and orally with effect from 28.02.2002, without giving any notice nor paid any compensation. The petitioner continuously worked and put in more than 240 days and the order of termination is illegal and the same is in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short “the Act”) and the 2nd respondent did not comply with the requirement of Section 25-F of the said Act.
5. The petitioner filed I.D.No.126 of 2003 before the 1st respondent challenging the termination order passed by the 2nd respondent and for reinstatement of petitioner with continuity of service and back wages. The 1st respondent passed an Award, dated 20.02.2006 dismissing the claim of the petitioner with a finding that the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act and the petitioner was not a regular workman and had not been appointed by a competent authority to utilize his services. Aggrieved by the said award, the present writ petition is filed.
6. The petitioner having been worked for about 10 years continuously, terminating the petitioner without complying with the Section 25-F of the Act, is illegal. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.
7. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj filed a counter affidavit and submits as follows:
That the petitioner was never engaged as an NMR and was only engaged as a piece worker and his services have been utilized as a driver only. The petitioner filed O.A.No.8583 of 2001 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, seeking regularization of his services and the Tribunal directed the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation before the 3rd respondent and subsequently, the 3rd respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the rejection order, the petitioner filed I.D.No.126 of 2003 for his reinstatement.
8. The petitioner was engaged temporarily and later his services were terminated and that the petitioner never worked for 240 days continuously. There is no order of appointment, termination and no record regarding payment of wages a
