IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Appeal No. 715 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 04/04/2008 in Writ Petition No. 2875 of 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: K.Seetha Ramulu, S/o. Veeraiah, R/o H. No. 19-2-168/A, Taddan, Hyderabad-64 ... APPELLANT AND 1) The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Godavarikhani. 2) The Secretary, Major Irrigation Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3) The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Construction Corporation Limited, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 4) The Deputy General Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Construction Corporation Limited, Tekulapalli Circle, Khammam. 5) The Deputy General Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Construction Corporation Limited, Superanumary Unit, Construction Circle, K.C.Campus, Huzurabad, Karimanagar District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: Judgment: (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. Being aggrieved by an order dated 24.4.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2875 of 2001, this appeal has been filed by a daily wager. 2. The appellant – petitioner had worked as daily wager under respondent No.4 Corporation from 30.4.1977 to 21.5.1979. It is an admitted fact that after 21.5.1979, he did not work. The case of the appellant is that his service was orally terminated whereas the case of respondent No.4 is that the appellant had abandoned the service. 3. The appellant had raised a dispute under Section 2- A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani. The Industrial Tribunal, after hearing the concerned parties, dismissed the said application on 9.6.2000. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant ﬁled writ petition, which has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge directing respondent No.4 to reinstate the appellant in service afresh without back wages and continuity of service. Against the said order, this appeal has been filed. 4. We have heard the learned advocates. 5. Looking to the facts of the case, especially when there was no speciﬁc evidence showing that the services of the appellant were terminated, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed respondent No.4 to take the appellant in service afresh without back wages or continuity in service. 6. The appellant is a daily wager and there cannot be any question with regard to paying back wages especially when it was not speciﬁcally established that his service has been wrongfully terminated. 7. We do not ﬁnd any substance in the appeal and it is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ July 30, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J svs ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {TRT}