HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No: 17149 of 1999 Dated 3-6-2010 Between: K.Pentayya. Petitioner. And: Visakhapatnam Steel Plant represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Visakhapatnam and another. .....Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No: 17149 of 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 9-6-1999 under which the petitioner was informed that his services were no more required, as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the material available on record including the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a Khalasi on contract basis initially for a period of one year w.e.f. 6- 12-1997 and subsequently, the period of contract was extended for a further period of one year w.e.f. 6-12-1998. Thereafter, the impugned proceedings dated 9-6-1999 came to be passed informing the petitioner that his services were no more required. It is not disputed before this Court that along with the impugned order, a cheque for Rs.4,172/- was enclosed towards the salary for the period from 1-6-1999 to 9-6-1999 and the payment of one month salary in lieu of notice period a per clause (g) of the appointment letter dated 22-11-1997. It is also not in dispute that his appointment was on contract basis. Hence the impugned order cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that as the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days, the action of the respondents in terminating his services and proposing to engage another person in his place was in contravention of Section 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act. The said allegation has been categorically denied in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and it is explained that no person has been appointed as contract basis in place of the petitioner. As a matter of fact, it is the specific case of the respondent that there was no work and therefore there was no need to engage any other person. The stand taken by the respondent could not be contradicted by the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order cannot be held to be illegal or arbitrary and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ G.ROHINI,J Dated: 3-6-2010. Dvs HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI ` WRIT PETITION No: 17149 of 1999 Dated 3-6-2010