IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMA MOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL No. 1096 OF 2011 Between: Mohd. Khalid .....Appellant AND The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Aggrieved by the order dated 22.08.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P. No. 19382 of 1999, the writ petitioner is in appeal. It is the case of the appellant that he was appointed as Section Writer on 31.10.1989 and continued upto 21.9.1991 and terminated on 22.9.1991 without giving any notice. Aggrieved thereby the appellant raised I.D. No. 3 of 1999 assailing action of the second respondent in disengaging his services inter alia contending that he was appointed as Section Writer and promoted to the post of Lower Division Clerk. The Labour Court by order dated 5.4.1999 passed in ID No. 3 of 1999, rejected the claim of the petitioner seeking reinstatement on the ground of delay and laches on his own part. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed W.P. No. 19382 of 1999 contending that even though he had completed 240 days in a calendar year, the Industrial Tribunal went wrong in rejecting his claim without following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case of the respondent Corporation is that the appellant was appointed as work charged employee temporarily for a specified period for the election and census work and after completion of the said projects, he was disengaged. The learned Single Judge by the order impugned dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present Writ Appeal by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in W.A.No. 1118 of 2008 and Batch dated 16.9.2008 preferred by similarly situated workmen, the second respondent has issued proceedings No.2047/B3/LWS/GHMCS/2009/ 1527 dated 20.6.2009 reinstating the workmen afresh. In the circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant herein in terms of the proceedings dated 20.6.2009 issued pursuant to the judgment of this court in W.A. No.1118 of 2008 and batch dated 16.9.2008. It is needless to add that after reinstatement, if the services of the appellant – workman are not required, it is open to the respondent – Corporation to terminate his services in accordance with law. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. No order as to cost. _______________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed __________________________ Justice Nooty Rama Mohana Rao December 26, 2011 MAS