IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1226 OF 2009 Dt.04.11.2009 Between: K. Chengal Raju … Appellant And The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ananthapur and another … Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri S.V. Muni Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.1: G.P. for Labour THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1226 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) Being aggrieved by an order dt.18.6.2009 passed in W.P. No.7855 of 2002, this appeal has been filed by the original petitioner, who was working as Steno-Typist. The appellant was appointed on 10.2.1994 in second respondent organization and he had submitted his resignation on 27.7.1997, which had been accepted, and therefore his services were terminated. Subsequently, the appellant was re-appointed on 16.9.1997 for a period of six months and thereafter, by efflux of time, his appointment had come to an end. Upon completion of the term of his appointment, services of the appellant were terminated, but, he was aggrieved by the said action of the respondents and, therefore, he had approached the Labour Court under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the termination was valid, but it had granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the appellant towards compensation. Being aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court, the aforestated petition had been filed, which has been rejected by the learned Single Judge. However, the learned Single Judge has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-, by enhancing the sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation. We have gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Award of the Labour Court. We are satisfied that the order of termination cannot be said to be bad, because the appointment of the appellant was for a limited period and by efflux of time, the service of the appellant had come to an end. After completion of the period for which the appellant had been appointed, he had no right of whatsoever type to continue in service. We do not see any illegality in the impugned order. The Writ Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 04.11.2009 bnr