IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 577 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 13/03/2008 in WP NO : 7627 OF 1999 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Divisional Engineer, Coaxial Maintenance, Telecom Department, Visakhapatnam - 530 001. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 K. Nageswara Rao, C/o.China Satyam, Kondanarapeta, Tuni - 533 401. 2 Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.R.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order dated 13-3-2008 passed in W.P.No. 7627 of 1999, this appeal has been filed by the appellant-original petitioner. By virtue of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge has remanded the matter to the Tribunal for determining the entitlement with regard to the back wages. The order of the Tribunal, in so far as it pertains to reinstatement of the 1st respondent-workman is concerned, the award has been confirmed. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-employer has submitted that the learned Single Judge having heard the matter elaborately ought to have remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh hearing on all issues so that further evidence can also be led before the tribunal. We do not agree with the said submission of the learned Advocate for the reason that ample opportunities were given to the appellant- employer to lead evidence to the effect that the 1st respondent-workman was appointed for a limited period and for a particular project. The 1st respondent-workman was never informed about the same and simply because one officer of the appellant authority informed another officer that the 1st respondent-workman was appointed for a particular project, the same would not help the appellant-employer so as to make out a case that the respondent-workman was given appointment to work for a particular project only. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order with regard to reinstatement. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant that the project for which the 1st respondent-workman was appointed is over and that it is not possible to reinstate the workman now. In our opinion, the aforestated argument cannot be accepted for the reason that we are in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal that the 1st respondent-workman was wrongfully retrenched and as the appellant- employer could not establish that the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act has afforded protection to the employer. Further, it is not in dispute that the 1st respondent-workman was never informed that he was appointed for a particular project or for a particular period. Intimations given by one officer of the authority to another officer would not mean that the 1st respondent-workman was appointed for a particular project or for a particular period. The learned Advocate has referred to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Microwave project, Kota v. Ramesh Chand[1] and State of M.P. v. Arjunlal Rajak[2]. In our opinion, the said judgments would not help the appellant for the simple reason that no evidence was let in to the effect that the 1st respondent-workman was appointed for a particular project or for a particular period. For the aforestated reasons, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 18th June, 2008 _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR To 1. 2.2 CD copies [1] (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 669 [2] 2006 SCC (L&S) 429