IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO : 305 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/11/2008 in WP NO : 14078 OF 1999 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Executive Engineer,(PH) Engineering Department, Gorakashanpeta, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Kum.Muppidi Jesudoss Mercy D/o Jesudoss, R/o D.No.60-9-5, P&T Colony, Rajahmundry 533105. 2 The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO : 305 of 2009 JUDGEMENT : (Per Sri Justice B Prakash Rao) Heard learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development and learned counsel for respondents Mr P Raghavender Reddy and at their request, the appeal is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. The appellant is an Engineering Department of Government of Andhra Pradesh/management, has filed this appeal under clause 15 of Letter Patent, inter-alia aggrieved against the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 14078 of 1999 dated 25.11.2008, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, where it sought for writ of certiorari challenging the correctness of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Visakapatnam in I D No. 54 of 1996 dated 11.1.1999. Few facts, which are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that according to the respondents in an application filed before the Labour Court where a dispute was raised that she has been retrenched illegally. After contest there by the appellant herein on various grounds including the ground that she/first respondent herein does not come within the definition of “workmen”, especially that she has been appointed and discharged duties in a particular scheme, therefore she cannot claim any relief. Further there being no plea or averment by her not getting any employment gainfully and lastly there has been a delay. After holding an enquiry, where both sides let in evidence both documentary and oral, it has been found that apart from her own version that she is working for more than 240 days during 12 months period, it has been admitted by the witness on examination by appellant as MW.1 who stated that she has been completed minimum period of 240 days in an year and referred that even otherwise having regard to the continuous claim as shown from the statement of appellant, there is a clear violation of section 25 FFF and it also amounts to retrenchment and as such same is invalid and award was passed for reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service. Challenging the same, writ petition was filed raising self same grounds. The learned Single Judge having found that there are no merits or foundation in support of the aforesaid pleas, dismissed the writ petition, hence, the appeal. Having considered the contentions raised by both the sides and on perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that admittedly even as per the evidence of MW.1 who was examined on behalf of the appellant, the first respondent herein has completed 240 days in an year and even otherwise a look at the statement filed by the appellant before the Labour Court itself, shows that during the relevant period, the first respondent has been working continuously with a break of one or two days, which itself is more than enough to satisfy herself to come within the meaning of “workmen” as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act. Further as rightly pointed out, even otherwise also under the provisions of section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, attracts as regards the gainful employment and the same is considered and the respondent has specifically pleaded the same, apart from the claim made in in para 8 that she is out of employment and with reference to same there is nothing on record as to whether is gainfully employed or not. In the absence of the same, it is not open for the appellant herein to raise all such pleas at this late hour. Having regard to the same, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, there are no merits in the appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs. _______________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J _________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J DATE: 16.3.2009 tvk