HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION NO:16872 OF 2000 DATED:20.8.2010. Between: The Commissioner, Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Kurnool …Petit And: 1. A. Uma Maheshwara Rao and another. …Respond This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION NO:16872 OF 2000 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed challenging the award pass I.D.No.175 of 1994 by the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Indu Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur. The 1st respondent-workman filed the above I.D challengin termination order. It is contended by the 1st respondent-workman th worked for more than 240 days and his employment with the municipa a schedule employment within the meaning of section 2(G) falling in No.6 of the Schedule, under “Employment under any local authority” o minimum wages Act and he is an employee as defined in Section 2(i) Minimum Wages Act. It is further stated that the municipality terminate services and the said termination does not fall within any of the exem categories specified in Section 2 (oo) of the I.D. Act and that the munici effected retrenchment without complying the mandatory provisions Section 25-F, 75-F of the I.D. Act and Rules 78 and 79 framed thereund is further stated that he filed O.A.No.1312 of 1992 before the Administrative Tribunal, but the Tribunal rejected his claim directin authorities to examine his case as per rules. In the above I.D., the Tribunal having observed that the termin order is not valid, set aside the termination order. But, however, the Tri having found that the petitioner secured alternative employment 24.6.1995, issued a direction to the authorities to pay the backwages the date of removal till the date of securing the alternative employm Having aggrieved by the same, the Municipal Corporation filed the pr writ petition. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material availab record. The material on record goes to show that the respondent-wor worked nearly for more than 240 days and no reasons were assigne retrenchment of the respondent-workman. The order under chal clearly goes to show that the retrenchment is in contravention o provisions of the I.D.Act. Further, as the workman secured altern employment, the Tribunal only directed the authorities to pay the wages. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, I feel that the order of the Tri does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice T.Meena Ku Date:20.08.2010 NN HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION NO:16872 OF 2000 DATE:20.8.2010.