IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.418 OF 2011 DATED:20.6.2011 Between: Smt. P. Parvathi … Appellant And M/s. GIC Housing Finance Ltd., Rep. by its Area Manager 6th Floor, United India Insurance Building Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.418 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) Appellant – respondent, a Junior Executive on the establishment of the respondents 1 and 2, appointed on 15.4.1996 was terminated from service on 24.1.1997. Being aggrieved, I.D. No.57 of 1998 was filed before the Industrial Tribunal, which was allowed taking a view that the order of termination amounts to retrenchment. The order of the Tribunal came to be questioned by medium of writ petition which was granted, inter alia on the ground that the appellant – respondent is not a ‘workman’ within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’) because the duties assigned to her detailed in the order of her appointment, reproduced in the judgment by the learned single Judge, are purely administrative, fall out being, her exclusion from the definition of ‘workman’ on the strength of sub-clause (iii) of clause (s) of Section 2 of the Act which specifically excludes those persons from purview of the Act who have been appointed for managerial or administrative job. Another reason that has prevailed on the learned single Judge is the mandate of Section 2(oo) of the Act read with sub-clause (bb) which supports the finding that appellant’s termination does not amount to retrenchment under the Act, being a contractual employee that too a probationer for one year whose contractual services are terminable at any time before completion of probation without assigning any reasons squarely applies to the appellant because admittedly she had not completed her probation before termination. On the basis of reasoning given by the learned single Judge, we find no fault with the judgment. Dismissed. Before parting with, it needs to be placed on record that reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the decision in Silver Jubilee Tailoring House v. Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishments[1] but in our opinion the judgment is not attracted reason being that it deals with the matter where relationship of master and servant was in dispute. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 20-6-2011 B. Narsinga Rao [1] (1974) 3 SCC 498