HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1181 OF 2004 ORDER: Petitioner filed I.D. No.208 of 2001 in the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam stating that he was appointed as Wash Boy in the Vizianagaram Depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘Corporation’) on 20-01-1987 on compassionate grounds, and retrenched him without issuing notice and without paying compensation, with effect from 31-01-1989. He pleaded that his father was an employee in the Corporation and on his death while in service, the respondents engaged him on compassionate grounds. According to him, the alleged termination is contrary to Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Respondents filed counter affidavit, opposing the I.D. They stated that the petitioner was never engaged by them, and the question of retrenchment does not arise. It was pleaded that the mere fact that intimation was given to the petitioner to appear for consideration does not amount to an order of appointment as such. They further stated that the petitioner, at the most, may have been engaged as a contract labour by a Labour Contractor and thereby worked in that capacity for some time. The Labour Court passed an award, dated 21-04-2003, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sufficient material was placed before the Labour Court to establish that the petitioner was working in the Depot till he was retrenched, and the relief of reinstatement with back wages ought to have been granted. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that though the petitioner pleaded that he was appointed as a Wash Boy in the Depot, he did not place the order of appointment either before the Labour Court or before this Court. He contends that in the Corporation, whenever, a person is appointed, it is only through a written order and a specific number is assigned. 4. The petitioner states that he was provided employment, on compassionate grounds by the Corporation. If that were be so, an order of appointment ought to have been issued to him. He did not place any such order either before the Labour Court or before this Court. Further, he did not place any other material to suggest that he has been appointed. Unless the very factum of appointment is proved, it would be difficult to adjudicate as to whether there exists any retrenchment, if so, it being contrary to Section 25 of the Act. The Labour Court has assigned cogent reasons, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. This Court is not inclined to take a different view. 5. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J December 23, 2010. KTL