THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

ORDER:

Assailing the award passed by the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, dated 06.04.2005 in I.D.No.78 of 2004, and the consequential order dated

09.03.2006 in I.A.No.6 of 2006 therein, the present writ petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri S. Bhoopal Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. In spite of service of notice on respondent No.2, there is no representation on his behalf. However, since the matter pertains to the year 2006, it is taken up for disposal on merits.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while respondent No.2 was working as an Attender on contract basis, his services were terminated on 01.12.1994. Challenging his oral termination, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court after almost a decade vide I.D.No.78 of 2004, wherein, ex parte orders were passed vide award dated 06.04.2005, setting aside his termination dated 01.12.1994, and the petitioners were directed to reinstate him into service, with continuity of service and back wages from 01.09.2004 @ Rs.1,000/- per month. Thereafter, the petitioners filed I.A.No.6 of 2006, seeking to set aside the ex parte award, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.03.2006. It is submitted that in compliance with the award dated 06.04.2005, the petitioners have already reinstated respondent No.2 into service vide proceedings dated 19.06.2006. However, it is contended that the Labour Court erred in granting continuity of service and awarding back wages from 01.09.2004, as respondent No.2, whose services were terminated way back in 1994, only approached the Labour Court in 2004. As such, the Labour Court ought not to have granted back wages. Therefore, it is prayed to pass necessary orders in the present writ petition.

4. Having regard to the above made submissions and on perusal of the material on record, it is evident that in compliance with the award of the Labour Court dated 06.04.2005 in I.D.No.78 of 2004, respondent No.2 had been reinstated into service vide proceedings Rc.No.A1/2366/05 dated 19.06.2006. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with that portion of the award.

5. Now the only case that remains for adjudication of this Court is with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner for back wages as awarded by the Labour Court.

6. As can be seen from the record and also as observed by the Labour Court, respondent No.2 was terminated in the year 1994, and after a lapse of almost a decade, he filed the present I.D. in the year 2004, for which delay, no reasons were assigned by him, nor was it established that he was nowhere gainfully employed during that period. Thus, respondent No.2, having slept over his rights for almost a decade, cannot claim back wages as a matter of course. As such, the Labour Court, while rightly holding that ‘this Tribunal is not inclined to award back wages for the period prior to filing of this petition’, ought not to have granted back wages even from

01.09.2004, owing to the lapses on the part of respondent No.2.

7. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the award dated 06.04.2005 in I.D.No.78 of 2004, to the extent of awarding back wages, and the same is hereby set aside.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed-in-part.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.

_________________________________

JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK Date: 24.07.2025.

GSP