Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S.Waltari Club vs N Srinivasu Visakhapatnam Another And ... on 11 December, 2025
APHC010277732004 Bench Sr.No:-12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3506]
AT AMARAVATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 25360 of 2004
M/s.Waltari Club, Visakhapatnam. ...Petitioner
Vs.
N Srinivasu Visakhapatnam Another and Others ...Respondent(s)
**********
Advocate for Petitioner: A V S LAXMI
Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP FOR LABOUR, A
SRINIVASA SARMA
CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
DATE : 11th December 2025
ORDER:
Present writ petition assails the order dated 25.06.2004 passed in I.D. No.67 of 2001 on the file of Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and the consequential publication of notice and notification issued vide G.O.Rt. No.1561, dated 08.09.2004, to be arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.
2. (a) 1st respondent stated to have been appointed as coach in health club of the appellant club on 24.08.1993. A formal appointment order came to be issued on 18.11.1996 after having put in considerable amount of service, his services came to be terminated by order dated 27.02.2001 to be given effect 2 CGR, J W.P. No.25360 of 2004 from 31.03.2001, without assigning any reasons as such. Though the club has enclosed cheque towards terminal benefits, 1st respondent stated to have not encashed the same and requested the management for reinstatement. As the said request was not considered, he got issued legal notice and thereafter instituted petition under Section 2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which got registered as I.D. No.67 of 2001 on the file of Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Visakhapatnam.
(b) The club, which was arrayed as respondent filed counter, denying the averments in the petition. It was disputed that petitioner therein was appointed as coach in the health club in the month of September, 1993, rather in pursuance to an application dated 01.11.1996 seeking for employment as Health Club Instructor (Coach), the club had issued an appointment order dated 18.11.1996, therefore, it was denied that the petitioner therein was in continuous service from 1993. Further that in the process of reviewing the club activities, a decision was taken to downsize the staff, in particular, those who were at the helm of health club. The services of 1st respondent herein were terminated along with two other persons attached to the said club 3 CGR, J W.P. No.25360 of 2004 after following due procedure as contemplated under Section 25F of I.D. Act. He was even handed over a cheque for ₹8,605/- along with the notice of termination dated 28.02.2001, therefore, there was no infirmity in the method and manner of issuing the termination orders.
(c) The 1st respondent/petitioner workman got examined himself as WW1 and two others persons, one member of the club and other ex-member of the club as WW2 and WW3 and got marked Exs.WW1 to WW10. Even the management has got examined its employees as Ex.MW1 and Ex.MW2 and got marked Exs.M1 to M22. The Tribunal, after analyzing the evidence, both oral and documentary, ultimately has come to conclusion that the workman had joined as coach in the health club on 24.08.1993/September, 1993. Further that though notice was issued terminating the services of petitioner, inasmuch as the period of service that was considered for the purpose of computing the compensation was reckoned only from 1996, rather than 24.08.1993, therefore, the Tribunal found that same was not in consonance with the provisions of Section 25F of I.D. Act. In view of the findings recorded, the Tribunal eventually allowed the petition and ordered for reinstatement of workman 4 CGR, J W.P. No.25360 of 2004 into service with back wages and for continuity of service. Assailing the same present appeal is filed.
3. This Court, by interim order dated 25.01.2005, while suspending the order of the Tribunal, directed the appellant to comply provisions of Section 17(B) of I.D. Act.
4. Heard Sri N.Appa Rao, learned counsel, representing Smt.A.V.S.Laxmi, learned counsel for petitioner. None appears for respondents despite service of notice.
5. (a) Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the Tribunal has erred in allowing the claim by erroneously considering the evidence of WWs 2 and 3, who were completely strangers and unconnected with the affairs of the club, inasmuch as they were incompetent to either issue any service certificate or speak of the employment of workman with the club, the findings rendered by the Tribunal qua such evidence is clearly perverse.
(b) He further contended that when sufficient evidence has been adduced on behalf of club to show that the workman was engaged only w.e.f. 18.11.1996, but not from September, 1993 as claimed by workman, the Tribunal erred in not considering the said evidence in proper perspective.
5
CGR, J W.P. No.25360 of 2004
(c) He further contended that even for sake of argument that the workman was believed to have been appointed in September, 1993, inasmuch as the club did follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 25F of the Act while terminating the service of workman, utmost the Tribunal only could have awarded the compensation to be in commensurate with the period of the service computing from September, 1993 but not ordering reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service, particularly when there is no quarrel with respect to recording the reasons for termination.
6. As there is no representation on behalf of the respondent workman, the matter is being heard and decided on the merits based on the material available on record.
7. It is the case of workman that he was appointed on 24.08.1993 as coach in health club belonging to the club. He came to be terminated from service by issuing termination order dated 27.02.2001. One month notice was given before effecting the termination as his services stated to be terminated from 31.03.2001. The termination order also indicated the reasons for such termination. The petitioner challenged the said termination order to be not in consonance with the provisions of the Act. 6
CGR, J W.P. No.25360 of 2004 Since petitioner approached the Tribunal and claimed that he was appointed on 24.08.1993, it was for him to establish such fact, particularly, when the club has denied the same and rather an order of appointment dated 18.11.1996 came to be marked by it in the process of evidence. Petitioner therefore had attempted to call for certain of the documents which were in the custody of the club and being unsuccessful even after filing of the application, he chose to examine WWs.2 and 3, who were the member and the manager worked earlier with the club. WW3 stated to have issued Ex.W9, which was service certificate of the workman. The said certificate was issued on 06.12.1994 indicating that workman joined into service in the year 1993 itself.
8. Though the club had tried to cross-examine the said witness, the Tribunal has noted that nothing incremental or contradictory and having any bearing on the claim of petitioner was elicited. Even WW2 also had spoken in the same lines as that of the workman. The club management in the counter and also evidence taken a stand that workman had made an application dated 01.11.1996 seeking for employment and in pursuance to the same, he has been issued appointment order dated 18.11.1996, however, it could not produce the application 7 CGR, J W.P. No.25360 of 2004 made by the workman. Therefore, the Tribunal has drawn an adverse inference that the club, being the custodian of the entire of the records, was trying to withhold the crucial documents and merely exhibiting the documents which otherwise would favour it. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal has come to conclusion that petitioner has established that he has been appointed as coach on 24.08.1993/September 1993, as such the version of the appellant club came to be rejected.
9. Coming to the aspect of other requirements, those need to be satisfied in terms of Section 25F of Act, i.e., recording of reasons for termination and also payment of compensation, the Tribunal has concluded that the club was within its right to take decision of removing any of its workman, having regard to its financial position, however, as workman has been paid compensation by computing the period of past service considering his date of appointment as 18.11.1996, the Tribunal has allowed the petition treating that the employer had violated Section 25F of the Act.
10. In that view of the matter, it had directed reinstatement of workman back into service with all back wages and continuity of service. Insofar as the requirement of stating the reasons in the 8 CGR, J W.P. No.25360 of 2004 termination order was concerned, the Tribunal did make note of the fact that it was within the management's right to terminate workman, of course assigning the reasons, which in the present case did exist. While coming to the aspect of the determination of compensation which is one of the preconditions for effecting termination, the appellant had computed the compensation considering the period of service from 18.11.1996 till the date of termination, since the tribunal has come to conclusion that petitioner was appointed in September, 1993, the compensation as computed by the appellant club definitely would be not in consonance with Section 25F of the Act. This Court is of the opinion that retrenchment compensation to the workman should have been computed from September, 1993 but not from 18.11.1996. As the compliance of Section 25F of the Act is mandatory and that the conditions precedent to retrenchment of workman require to be followed in letter and spirt, inasmuch as the appellant has not determined the amount of retrenchment/compensation duly considering the date of appointment as 24.08.1993/18.11.1996, the order of retrenchment is therefore void ab initio and non est. It is now very well settled proposition that compliance of Section 25F of the Act, in 9 CGR, J W.P. No.25360 of 2004 particular, the requirement of issuing one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and also paying the retrenchment compensation by computing the same to be equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service has to be followed in stricto senso and non- compliance therewith renders the retrenchment of employee nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated. [Refer Anoop Sharma v. Public Health Division, Haryana1 (Para 6.6) and Manju Saxena v. Union of India2 (Paras 16 to 18)].
11. In view of aforesaid settled legal position, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed.
CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J ss 1 (2010) 5 SCC 497 2 (2019) 2 SCC 628