THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.1402 OF 2005 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the award dated 21.08.2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court at Warangal in I.D.No.3/1996 in dismissing the petition filed under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short ‘the Act’) the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Toys Instructor on 21.5.1985 in the office of the respondent no.2 – The Secretary and Convener, District Level Committee, A.P. Women’s Finance Corporation, Warangal, and worked continuously for five years up to 19.9.1990 with wages of Rs.800/- per month. His grievance is that though he worked for more than 240 days, in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, his services were terminated. Subsequently, the petitioner was again appointed as Assistant Toys Instructor by giving conditional appointment. In the claim petition, the petitioner alleged that his juniors were absorbed, but he was not given the same benefit. Earlier he filed writ petition before this court in W.P.No.10319/1991 and by order dated 7.7.1995 the writ petition was dismissed, giving liberty to approach the Labour Court and hence the present petition. 4. The respondents filed counter affidavit and stated inter alia that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.105 dated 25.5.1985 approving the proposal relating to manufacturer of toys and educational equipment with the expenditure of Rs.2,90,000/- being met from the Special Central Assistance, with a view to benefit the S.C. women in the backward tribal block of Eturnagaram in Warangal District. The A.P. Schedule Castes Co-operative Finance Corporation, Hyderabad, releases the funds to the Director of Women and Child Welfare, Hyderabad and from out of the special central assistance placed at the disposal of the Corporation. The petitioner was appointed as Toys Instructor in the toy making unit at Eturnagaram on consolidated pay of Rs.500/- per month by the 2nd respondent with effect from 25.5.1985. The said order clearly indicates that it was purely on temporary basis and his services were liable for termination at any time without notice. In the course of time, it was found that the there was no demand to the said unit at Eturnagaram and in the meanwhile the Telugu Bala Mahila Pragathi Pranganam, Karimnagar, was proposed to be co-merged in May, 1990 and one of the trading proposed in the said prangama, was toy making, which includes manufacturing of educational equipments. In view of the above position, the petitioner was proposed to be shifted to TBMPP, Karimnagar, with a view to avoid hardship to the petitioner. He was asked by memo dated 9.3.1990 to give his consent to the work as Assistant Instructor in TBMPP, Karimnagar on consolidated pay of Rs.800/- per month and accordingly he had given his consent and he joined duty at TBMPP, Karimnagar on 11.10.1990 and since then he worked continuously up to 10.1.1991 and thereafter, he remained absent from 11.1.1991, without leave or information and as such there is no actual termination of the services of the petitioner and hence violation of Section 25-F of the Act does not arise. It is further stated that the petitioner was issued memo dated 20.4.1991 directing him to report duty at Head Office, but he never responded and approached the court. The Corporation has no funds and it is difficult to run the schemes and hence the contention of the petitioner that he was given promise that he would be absorbed, is untrue and incorrect. There are no sanctioned posts in the Corporation and the instructors were engaged in respect of trades, so long as the trades are continued by funding agencies. With these averments, the petition was sought to be dismissed. 5. Based on the above averments, the Tribunal framed the following issue: “Whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with all consequential benefits?: 6. In support of the case of the petitioner, he was examined as M.W.1 and Exs.W-1 to W-5 were got marked. On behalf of the respondents, M.W.1 was examined and Exs.M-1 to M-14 were got marked. 7. Appreciating the entire evidence available on record, the trial court dismissed the petition and confirmed the order of termination dated 19.9.1990. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the averments made in the claim petition, further stated that the respondents did not allow the petitioner to work and that he was not absent from the duty since 11.1.1991 as stated in the counter affidavit. He contended that the petitioner was terminated on 19.9.1990 in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. He stated that though the respondents stated that there is no actual order of termination, it is oral termination. In view of the continuous services of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with all consequential benefits. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the petitioner was appointed on purely temporary basis in the scheme, which is funded by the Corporation and as the funding is stopped, the schemes were closed and there is also no sanctioned post and the petitioner was initially appointed on 25.5.1985. Thereafter, as the is no demand to the unit where the petitioner is working and meanwhile when the unit was merged with Telugu Bala Mahila Pragathi Pranganam, Karimnagar, in order to avoid hardship to the petitioner, with his consent, he was engaged as Assistant Instructor on 11.10.1990 and since then he worked continuously till 10.1.1991 and from 11.1.1991 he was absent and he was also issued memo dated 20.4.1991 directing him to report for duty and there was no response. It is stated that the scheme is closed as the Corporation is not funding. With these averments, the writ petition was sought to be dismissed by confirming the award of the Tribunal. 10. In view of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for my consideration is whether the impugned award warrants any interference? 11. The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner was appointed as Toys Instructor in the scheme, which is funded by the Corporation as a social welfare measure on 25.5.1985, purely on temporary basis and in the said appointment letter it was clearly indicated that his services were liable to be terminated at any time without any notice. He worked from 21.5.1985 to 19.9.1990 and thereafter he was terminated. The case of the respondents is that there was no demand to the unit where the petitioner was working and in the meanwhile the said unit was merged with Telugu Bala Mahila Pragathi Pranganam, Karimnagar and in order to avoid hardship, by taking his consent, he was given fresh appointment orders under Ex.W-3 for a period of three months and he joined on 11.10.1990 and that he worked till 10.1.1991 and thereafter absconded from duty. These facts would disclose that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on temporary basis for a fixed tenure depending upon the exigencies of work. As per the counter averments and the evidence on record, as per Exs.M-1 to M-14, the Corporation is not funding for running of the schemes and hence the units are closed. Further, the case of the petitioners is that there is no sanctioned post and as noted above, the engagement of the petitioner is only need based and not on permanent basis by following any recruitment procedure. 12. Further, based on the evidence under Ex.M-9, the Tribunal found that the petitioner himself absconded from attending duties. 13. In view of the above, the Tribunal rightly following the decisions of the Apex Court, dismissed the petition by confirming the initial order of termination dated 19.9.1990. I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. AVS ------------------------------------ -- 09—02—2011