- (1.)In all these matters, the Commissioner, Ongole Municipality is the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Award passed by the 2nd respondent dated 3-6-1999 in 11I.D. cases filed by the former workmen of the Municipality claiming the relief of reinstatement with back wages. The facts offered and the evidence led in all the 11I.Ds., were the same. Therefore, the same documents were marked in each I.D., and the same witnesses were examined. However, 11 different awards on the same day i.e., 3-6-1999 were passed directing the petitioner to reinstate the workmen with 50% back wages and attendant benefits. As mentioned at the out set, the Writ Petitions are filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the award passed by the 2nd respondent. When the matters were listed for admission before me, Sri D. Srinivas, representing Mr. B. Venkateswara Rao, submitted that caveat petitions are filed by the workmen and hence they may be heard. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Employer/ Commissioner, Ongole Municipality and the Workmen and with their consent, the matters are being disposed of by this common order at the Admission stage.
(2.)For the purpose of noticing necessary facts, I may take up W.P.No. 21926 of 1999 filed against I.D.No. 53 of 96, dated 3-6-1999. The Public Health Department was running a water supply scheme called Improved Water Supply Scheme since the beginning of 1990. The first respondent/ workman was appointed by the Executive Engineer, Public Health Department on 1-1-1991 as NMR worker. He was paid daily wages. The water works under the control of the Public Works Department was transferred to the Petitioner/Municipality on 5-11-1991 and since then it is being operated by the Municipality, On 15-10-1991 the Municipal Council passed a resolution resolving to take over the water supply scheme from Public Health Department and also resolved to continue the workman and others like him in the same water works as NMR employees subject to the condition of getting approval from the Director of Municipal Administration. As no approval was granted, the Commissioner of the Municipality disengaged the services of the workmen with effect from 5-2-1992. Aggrieved by this action, the workmen raised Industrial Disputes under Sec. 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). In the claim petition before the Industrial Tribunal, the main contention of the workmen was that the termination/disengagement of the workmen is contrary to the provisions of the Act. The workmen prayed for reinstatement and other consequential benefits.
(3.)The claim was opposed by the petitioner/Municipality on the ground that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the workmen in view of the special enactment viz., A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, that as there is no appointment order appointing the workmen as NMRs in the Municipality and as there is no approval from the Director of Municipal Administration, they need not follow the provisions of the Act.