THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1052 OF 2009 Dt. 12.08.2009 Between: The Divisional Engineer Microwave Maintenance Visakhapatnam … Appellant And The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Visakhapatnam and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1052 OF 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) The appellant is an employer, who has been aggrieved by the order dt.12.6.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.20133 of 1999, whereby the Award dt.4.3.1999 passed by the Industrial Tribunal – cum - Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, had been modified. Respondent No.2 was appointed as a workman from time to time, but at the time when he was given appointment last time there was no mention in the appointment order to the effect that he was appointed for a particular project. He was working as a casual mazdoor on daily wages and he completed two hundred and forty (240) days and yet without following any procedure under the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act”) he was relieved. In the circumstances, he had approached the Industrial Tribunal – cum - Labour Court and by Award dt.4.3.1999, respondent No.2 was ordered to be reinstated into service with back wages. Aforestated Award had been challenged in the aforestated petition. The learned Single Judge, coming to the conclusion that the respondent – workman had approached the Industrial Tribunal – cum - Labour Court at a belated stage, modified the Award to the effect that back wages be paid to the workman only from the date on which the I.T. I.D. was filed in the Labour Court. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant – employer has submitted that no compensation be directed to be paid because the respondent – workman was appointed for a particular project. There is no reference to any evidence to the effect that the respondent – workman was given appointment to work for a particular project. In the circumstances, the provisions of Section 2(OO)(bb) of the Act, could not help the appellant – employer. We do not find any substance in the appeal as the order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12.08.2009 bnr