IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 581 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 07/03/2008 in WP NO : 7668 OF 1999 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Divisional Engineer, Coaxial Maintenance, Telecom Department, Visakhapatnam-530 001 ..... APPELLANT AND 1 R.Katcheeru, C/o Reddy Sanays, Purushothamapuram Village & P.O. Visakhapatnam District 531 005. 2 Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.R.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) The order dated 7-3-2008 passed in W.P.No.7668 of 1999 has been challenged by the original petitioner-employer. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has confirmed the award dated 30-3-1998 passed by the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. The relevant facts for determination of the present appeal in nutshell are as under: Respondent No.1-workman was appointed as an Office Assistant by the appellant. It is an admitted fact that at the time of appointment, no appointment order was given to the respondent-workman stating that he was appointed for a particular period and for a particular project. Ultimately without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act pertaining to the retrenchment, the respondent-workman was relieved from service, though he had admittedly worked for more than 240 days in year. In the aforestated circumstances, the respondent-workman had approached the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. By an award dated 30-3-1998 the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the workman with 50 per cent backwages. The aforestated award was challenged in the petition which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-employer has submitted that the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge had committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the case of the respondent-workman was not covered under the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. We are not in agreement with the said submission made by the learned Advocate because the learned Advocate could not show anything to us to the effect that at the time of employment, the respondent-workman was given an appointment letter indicating that the workman was appointed either for a particular project or a scheme or for a specified period and, therefore, the respondent-workman was relieved after completion of the project. We cannot presume the said fact because there is no evidence on record to show that the workman was made aware of the said fact when he was given initial appointment. In our opinion, for the aforestated reason, the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act would not be applicable. In the aforestated circumstances, we do not find any error committed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge so far as reinstatement of the workman. With regard to payment of back wages, it has been argued by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant that there was nothing to show that there was a justifiable reason for awarding back wages and, therefore, the case requires to be remanded to the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court. Learned Advocate Sri G.Vidyasagar appearing for the respondent- workman has fairly submitted that the respondent-workman would not insist for the back wages and, therefore, the matter need not be remanded to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. In view of the above concession given on behalf of the respondent- workman, we need not even remand the matter to the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court for determining whether awarding of 50 per cent back wages was justified. In view of the concession, the award as well as the order of the learned Single Judge are modified to the extent that respondent-workman shall be reinstated into service without any back wages. Learned Advocate Sri G.Vidyasagar has submitted that till today the respondent-workman has not been reinstated. If the respondent-workman has not been reinstated till today, he shall be reinstated within six weeks from today. The appeal shall stand disposed of as partly allowed with no order as to costs. _____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 20th June, 2008 _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR To 1. 2.2 CD copies