ORDER:

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article

226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by calling for the records relating to the Award passed in ID No.114/2012 dt.11.2.2014 published vide G.O.Rt.No.569 dt.9.5.2014 and set aside the same by declaring as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the ID Act by relying upon unrelated judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court and consequently direct the respondents to re-instate the petitioner into service as electrician by setting aside oral termination orders dt.11.4.2012 with all attendant benefits such as continuity of service and back wages and pass such other order …”

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was employed as Electrician in the respondent‟s Corporation from 6.10.2008, but no appointment order was issued and from the date of his joining at respondent No.1‟s office, he was discharging his duties sincerely, honestly and to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors and from October, 2009 he was directed to work under respondent No.2 and wages were paid to him on piece rate basis and he worked more than 240 days in a period of 12 calendar months and he was attending to his duties along with regular electricians and his work was similar in nature to that of regular electricians and he is entitled for regularization of his services and to avoid regularization and other benefits, the respondents created a sham and camouflage contract system and indeed respondent No.2 send the petitioner for training at Zonal Work Shop, Kadapa, but instead of regularizing his services, respondent No.2 failed to allow the petitioner to his duties with effect from 11.04.2012 and orally terminated the services of the petitioner. The said oral termination amounts to retrenchment and the said retrenchment was effected without complying with the mandatory provisions. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation to the respondents for reinstatement, but no action has been taken by the respondents. Questioning the said oral termination, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act vide I.D.No.114 of 2012 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Anantapuramu, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 11.02.2014. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.114 of 2012, the present writ petition is filed.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter contending that the work contract of D.C.Electrician was given to the petitioner on nomination basis and no appointment order was issued to him. The petitioner was nominated for training to know the updates of the systems of the Corporation only. As there is no appointment, the question of termination does not arise. Hence, there is no retrenchment of the petitioner. There is no employee and employer relationship between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation. I.D.No.114 of 2012 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal on merits.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 2008 and continuously worked upto 11.04.2012 i.e. more than 240 days in one calendar year, and the oral termination of the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and it amounts to retrenchment as defined under Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short “I.D.Act”) and requested to set aside the Award passed in I.D.No.114 of 2012 by the Industrial Tribunal.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that the work contract was given to the petitioner on nomination basis and no appointment order was issued to the petitioner. As there is no appointment, the question of termination does not arise and the Industrial Tribunal dismissed the I.D.No.114 of 2012 filed by the petitioner. As there is no empl