ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the award dated 30.3.1998 made in I.T. I.D.No.(C)2/95 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. Petitioner is management and first respondent is workman. The facts are not much in dispute. It appears, first respondent was engaged as an Office Assistant in the Coaxial Maintenance, Tuni on 4.3.1984 and worked continuously upto 31.1.1986 for a total period of 610 days. According to the workman, the management without any reasonable cause terminated his services on 31.1.1986 without following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The grievance of the workman was that the management terminated his services illegally while retaining his juniors in gross violation of Section 25-G of the I.D. Act. The management contended that the workman was appointed only for a short period to safeguard the coaxial cables. He was appointed merely on casual basis and without any regular procedure of employment. The services of the workman were terminated after completion of the work. Since the workman kept quiet for seven long years, he is not entitled for backwages. Before the Labour Court, in support of his case, workman examined one of his co-workers as W.W.1 and examined himself as W.W.2. and marked document Ex.W1. On behalf of management, Sub-Divisional Engineer, Tuni was examined as M.W.1 and Exs.M1 to M9 were marked. After hearing both parties and after considering the entire evidence on record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that none of the documents would show that the workman was appointed for a specific period upto 31.1.1986. Further, Ex.M1 and M2 clearly show the work particulars of the work orders and they do not show that the workman was appointed upto 31.1.1986 only. Exs.M3 to M8 are totally silent about this aspect and on the other hand, they were filed to show that the workman along with others was not appointed against the cadre strength. The management made a feeble attempt to take advantage of the exception in sub-section (bb) of Section 2(oo) defining retrenchment, but miserably failed to prove that a contract stipulating the duration of employment so that it could have urged successfully that the discharge of the workman was merely co- terminus with the expiry of the contract period. In fact there was no such specific pleading much less proof. Thus, the facts are very clear that the workman had worked for more than 240 days and the management retrenched him without following the provisions of I.D. Act. Therefore, while declaring the termination of workman as illegal, directed the management to reinstate the workman with 50% back wages and continuity of service and also awarded of costs of Rs.500/- . Aggrieved by the said award, management filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for petitioner-management Mr.R.S.Murthy strenuously contended that as and when the work order was extended, respondent-workman was engaged intermittently. May be, he worked for 610 days continuously, but that was only in view of the fact that the execution of project work was extended from time to time. Therefore, the workman was engaged continuously and his services are co-terminus with that of the expiry of the project period. The provisions of sub-section (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act are attracted. I am not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner. It is not the case of the management that any appointment order has been given to respondent-workman to the effect that he was engaged for a particular period and thereafter his services would be terminated. Once this is so, sub-section (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act has no application to the case of the respondent-workman. The learned counsel for petitioner further relied upon the judgment in MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SAMRALA v. RAJKUMAR[1] and drawn the attention of the Court to paras 6 and 13 of the said judgment, which reads as under: “It is thus, not in dispute that the respondent had worked intermittently. Furthermore, there does not appear to be any dispute that the terms of employment were as contained in the offer of appointment as noticed supra. The learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court in terms of his award dated 11.2.2003, on a finding that the said order of termination of the respondent was in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act” for short) directed that he be reinstated in service with 25% back wages. The appellant herein filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which by reason of the impugned judgment has been dismissed. In the decision of this Court in S.M.NILAJKAR v. TELECOM DISTT.MANAGER [(2003) 4 SCC 27 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 380], whereupon the learned counsel for the respondent placed strong reliance, this Court was concerned with a different fact situation obtaining therein. In that case, a scheme for absorption of the employees, who were appointed for digging, laying cables, erecting poles, drawing lines and other connected works was made which came into force with effect from 1.10.1989, and only those whose names were not included for regularization under the said scheme, raised disputes before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Mangalore. The termination of the services of casual mazdoors by the management of Telecom District Manager, Belgaum, thus came to be questioned in the reference made by the appropriate Government in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. This Court, having regard to the contentions raised by the respondents that the appellant therein was engaged in a particular type of work, namely, digging, laying cables, erecting poles, drawing lines and other connected works in the project and expansion of the Telecom Office in the district of Belgaum was of the opinion: (SCC p.37, para 13) ‘13. The termination of service of a workman engaged in a scheme or project may not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of sub-clause (bb) subject to the following conditions being satisfied: (i) that the workman was employed in a project or scheme of temporary duration; (ii) the employment was on a contract, and not as a daily-wager simplicter, which provided inter alia that the employment shall come to an end on the expiry of the scheme or project; (iii) the employment came to an end simultaneously with the termination of the scheme or project and consistently with the terms of the contract; and (iv) the workman ought to have been apprised or made aware of the above said terms by the employer at the commencement of employment”. In fact, in the above judgment, it is categorically stated that the termination of services of workman engaged in a scheme or project may not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of sub-clause (bb) subject to the condition that the employment was on a contract, and not as a daily-wager simplicter, which provided inter alia that the employment shall come to an end on the expiry of the scheme or project. In this case, admittedly, no appointment order was issued to workman at any point of time. Exs.M3 to M8 were marked only to show that muster was marked against workman. The muster does not reveal as to any contract appointment of workman for a specific period. Therefore, the management failed to establish that the employment of the workman was co-terminus with the contract/project work allotted to it etc. Under those circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner cannot be countenanced. The Labour Court has not committed any error either on facts or law, calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 7.3.2008 DA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 7668 of 1999 Between: Divisional Engineer, Coaxial Maintenance, Telecom Department, Visakhapatnam-530 001 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 R.Katcheeru, C/o Reddy Sanays, Purushothamapuram Village & P.O. Visakhapatnam District 531 005. 2 industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus and to declare the award dated 30-3-98 of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatam in IT ID NO.(C) 2/95 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam as being illegal, null and void and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : [1] 2006 SCC (L&S) 473