IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.20977 of 2001 DATE:25.11.2010 Between: The Financial Controller, Deccan Development Society …… Petitioner And Indoori Maruti and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.20977 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The petitioner took services of the 1st respondent as field worker as per Ex.M6 copy of appointment order dated 02.12.1996 with effect from 01.11.1996 on purely adhoc basis. After the work relating to DWACRA project was completed, the petitioner issued Ex.W-1 termination notice dated 19.05.1998 to the 1st respondent dispensing with his services as DWACRA project was completed and as there were no other projects in the hands of the petitioner in which the 1st respondent could be accommodated. The 1st respondent thereupon approached the 2nd respondent viz., Labour Court-I, Hyderabad under Section 2(a)(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking reinstatement of his services with the petitioner and other ancillary reliefs. After enquiry the Labour Court dismissed the petition, with a direction for payment of retrenchment compensation to the 1st respondent by the petitioner to the extent of Rs.5,274.50 Ps. Aggrieved by the said order dated 19.04.2001 passed by the labour Court-I, Hyderabad, in I.D. No.92 of 1998, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking writ of certiorari. 2) The labour Court in the impugned order held that the petitioner is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the Act). The labour Court further held that services of the 1st respondent as per Ex.M-6 fall within the exception (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act and that therefore, he is not entitled for reinstatement, but held that he is entitled for retrenchment compensation as per Section 25(F)(b) of the Act. In this writ petition, I do not propose to go into the question whether the petitioner is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act, or not as the writ petition can be disposed of on considering whether relief under Section 25(F)(b) can be granted when the 1st respondent is a contractual worker covered by Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. Having regard to terminology in Ex.M-6 order of appointment, I have no hesitation to agree with the finding that the termination by way of Ex.W-1 would not attract the definition of retrenchment in Section 2(oo) of the Act as it specifically excludes by clause (bb) that termination of service of the workmen as a result of non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workmen on expiry of the contractual period. When the labour Court came to the conclusion that termination covered by Ex.W-1 falls as an exception to Section 2(oo) of the Act and is not a retrenchment as such, then the question of resorting to Section 25(F)(b) of the Act for ordering retrenchment compensation does not arise at all. Finding of the labour Court on Section 2(oo)(bb) and relief granted under Section 25(F)(b) are contradictory. When the termination does not amount to retrenchment, it follows, no retrenchment compensation can be awarded to the 1st respondent. Therefore, order passed by the labour Court cannot stand. 3) In the result, Rule Nisi is made absolute and impugned order of the labour Court is quashed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J November 25, 2010 ksh