HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2956 OF 2002 ORDER: The 2nd respondent filed I.D. No.136 of 1995 before the Labour Court, Warangal, under Section 2 A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’), challenging the alleged order of oral termination. She pleaded that she was appointed as Gang Manzdoor by the petitioners on 01-01-1986 and she was continued upto 31-03- 1994. Permission for this was said to have been obtained by the petitioners on 03-04-1990. The 2nd petitioner issued circular, dated 25-03-1994, to discontinue the NMR Workers and accordingly, she was terminated through oral orders. It was alleged that the termination amounts to retrenchment in violation of Section 25 F of the Act. 2. The I.D. was opposed by the petitioners. They denied the very existence of relationship of the employee and the employer between them and the 2nd respondent. It is also alleged that she does not come under the description of workmen under Section 2 (s) of the Act nor their organization can be treated as an Industry under Section 2 (j) of the Act. Through its Award, dated 14-07-1999, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner, but without back wages. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Labour. None appears for the 2nd respondent. 4. The 2nd respondent asserted that she was in service as NMR casual labour between 01-06-1986 and 31-03-1994. That assertion was denied by the petitioners herein. Apart from deposing as WW1, the 2nd respondent filed Exs.W-1 to W-5. On behalf of the petitioners herein, MW-1 was examined. The 2nd respondent never asserted that her appointment was through a written order. She, however, placed reliance upon certain documents. Apart from that the Deputy Executive Engineer, who deposed as MW-1, stated that Exs.W-1 and W-2 establish that the 2nd respondent worked as NMR, prior to her termination in the month of April 1994. With this, the burden on the part of the 2nd respondent to prove her having been engaged as NMR, is discharged. 5. The unescapable conclusion is that her termination in April 1994 would contrary to Section 25 of the Act. The Labour Court took the same into account and granted relief. This Court is not inclined to differ with the same. 6. One aspect, which needs to be taken note of is that the Labour Court directed that the service rendered by the 2nd respondent as NMR, shall be taken into account for her seniority. That is totally outside the scope of the I.D. No relief beyond the one of reinstatement could have been granted. 7. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, upholding the award in all respects, but directing that the award in so far as it directs that the service of the 2nd respondent as NMR shall be counted towards seniority be set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J December 22, 2010. KTL