THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No. 24166 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner claims to have worked as Clerk on NMR basis from 03-05-1986 to 13-05-1987. Claiming the relief under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the I.D. Act’), the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.8406 of 1997. The writ petition was disposed of, on 24-01-2007, directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment under Section 25-H of the I.D. Act, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The respondent accordingly passed an order dated 04-01-2008, observing that the petitioner was not retrenched at all, and the question of reappointing her under Section 25-H of the I.D. Act does not arise. She feels aggrieved by the order, and prays for a Writ of Mandamus, in the form of a direction to the respondent, to appoint her as a Clerk, by giving preference over the other candidates. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner reeled under the impression that she was retrenched from service, and accordingly prayed for the relief under Section 25-H of the I.D. Act. This Court directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner under Section 25-H of the I.D. Act. A reply was given to the effect that the petitioner was not retrenched at all. Even now the petitioner has not able to satisfy the Court, that she has been retrenched. Further, the question of retrenchment would arise, if only there was an appointment, and the petitioner answers the description of a workwoman. It was clearly mentioned that the petitioner was engaged on daily wages, when there existed work. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the impugned order. Further, challenge, in fact, can be made, only before a Labour Court. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.29-09-2010. KO