JUDGMENT Petitioners seek for setting aside of the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal District dated 21.7.2000 ordering reinstatement of the petitioner as NMR worker with continuity of service but without backwages. The petitioner is the A.P. Housing Board represented by the Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer respectively. The second respondent was working as Man Mazdoor with the second respondent on daily wages with effect from 1.1.1991. On 12.3.1996, the services of the second respondent were terminated on the ground that the very appointment of the second respondent was illegal. The second respondent raised I.D.No. 93 of 1996 before the first respondent Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal. Through the impugned order, the termination orders were set aside and reinstatement together with continuity of service without backwages were ordered. Hence, the Writ Petition. The learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent challenged the termination of the petitioner as violative of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He submitted that even in the extreme cases of termination of the service of an employee in violation of Section 25-F, the appropriate relief would be ordering compensation but not reinstatement. He also submitted that on account of the interim directions of the Court, the second respondent has been paid Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act wages with effect from 28.4.2003. Admittedly, the second respondent had been engaged by the petitioners on 1.1.1991. Admittedly his services were terminated on 12.3.1996. Obviously, such termination is tantamount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Again admittedly, retrenchment compensation had not been paid to the second respondent when his services were terminated. Consequently, it is imperative that there shall be orders of reinstatement of the petitioner. However, the very award was passed in 2000 while the retrenchment of the petitioner was in 1996. The first respondent consequently is justified in ordering reinstatement without backwages but with continuity of service. I, therefore, see no merits in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.