IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Appeal No. 1586 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 23/07/2008 in Writ Petition No. 7570 of 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1) M.V.S.S. Prakash, S/o.M. Ramakrishna Rao, Aged 26 years, R/o.1-160/1, Balaji Nagar, Prashanthinagar, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam. 2) P. Suresh, S/o.Appaiah, Aged about 30 years, R/o.Plot No.38, Sainiranjan Colony, Doggavani Palem, Pendhurthi, Visakhapatnam. 3) N. Madhu Kumar, S/o.N. Thata Rao, aged about 31 years, R/o.C-31, NSDRC Qtrs., Gandhigram, Visakhapatnam-05. 4) H. Vijaya Krishna S/o.H. Subramanya Raju, Aged about 33 years, C-12, NSDRC Qrts., Gandhigram, Visakhapatnam-530 005. 5) I. Srinivasa Rao S/o.I. Appa Rao, aged about 30 years, R/o. D.No.22-6-10, Vempalla Nagar, Pedagantyad (Post), Visakhapatnam – 530 044. ... APPELLANTS AND National Ship Design and Research Center, (Autonomous Society under the Administrative Control of Ministry of Shipping, Government of India), Gandhigram, Visakhapatnam-5, Rep. by its Director. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: MR.C. DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MR.S.V. BHATT The Court made the following: J U D G M E N T : (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. Being aggrieved by an order dated 23.7.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.7570 of 2007, some of the original petitioners have filed this appeal, whose services were terminated in accordance with the terms of a contract entered into between them and the respondent society. 2. The original petitioners – appellants had worked as Apprentices under the respondent society and upon successful completion of the period of apprenticeship, on 03.01.1998, they were given appointment as Draughtsmen for a period of five years, with a condition that their services were liable to be terminated by either party upon giving notice of three months. 3. Thereafter, before completion of the period of five years, on 01.10.2001, another contract had been entered into whereby the salary of the appellants was increased substantially and they were being paid Rs.11,000/- per month, with a condition that their services could be terminated by either party by giving three months notice. 4. Case of the respondent society before the learned Single Judge was that services of the appellants had to be terminated because there was no work of Draughtsmen for them, as the society was likely to be closed down. After hearing the concerned advocates, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioners – the present appellants would not get any protection under the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, the petition was rejected. 5. Upon hearing the learned advocates and looking to the facts of the case, we are also of the view that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error while rejecting the petition because services of the appellants were terminated in pursuance of a contract of service entered among the appellants and the respondent society. 6. Upon hearing the learned advocates, it appears from what has been submitted by the appellants that possibly there might be some work of Draughtsmen in the respondent society and if it is so, we are sure that the society would prefer the present appellants in the matter of appointment of Draughtsmen as they have been trained as Draughtsmen by the said society. 7. Subject to the above observations, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ December 08, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J svs ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {KSRANI}