JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner-School has filed this Petition challenging the Award dated 18 January of 2020 passed by the 11th Labour Court, Mumbai, in Reference (IDA) No.283 of 2017. The Labour Court has answered the reference in the affirmative and directed the Petitioner-School to reinstate the Respondent with continuity of service and full backwages with effect from 18 May 2016.

2. The present Petition was admitted by this Court on 10 October 2022 and the order of the Labour Court has been stayed. However, this Court clarified that stay to the order of the Labour Court was not to preclude Respondent No.2 from filing an application for wages under provisions of section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the ID Act). Accordingly, Respondent No.2 has filed Interim Application No.93 of 2023 for payment of last drawn wages of Rs.19,753/- from the date of award till the final disposal of the Petition. During the course of hearing of Interim Application No.93 of 2023, the counsel appearing for the parties agreed that the Petition itself can be taken for final hearing. Accordingly, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Petitioner is Private Unaided School established from the Welfare Fund of the Defence Personnel with the aim of providing quality education to their wards. It is the case of the Petitioner-School that Group-D staff is usually outsourced on contractual basis, without giving any commitment regarding permanency. By letter dated 4 October 2012 Respondent No.2 was appointed on contract basis for a period of three years with effect from 1 October 2002 and was placed in the pay-scale of Rs.2550-3200. His total salary at lowest level of the basic pay was fixed at Rs.3621/-. At the end of the tenure of two years, service of the Respondent N.2 was extended for a period of three years with effect from 9 October 2005 vide order dated 1 October 2005. In similar manner, further extensions were granted to the Respondent No.2 vide orders dated 17 April 2008, 2 April 2009, 31 March 2010, 31 March 2012, 1 April 2013, 1 April 2014 and 31 May 2015. By the last extension order dated 31 May 2015, the appointment was extended upto 31 March 2016 with a condition that his present salary and original seniority would be protected. It is the case of the Petitioner-School that Respondent No.2 was absconding since 30 March 2016. That by way of afterthought, he sent leave application on 23 May 2016. After 31 March 2016 Petitioner-School did not extend appointment of Respondent No.2. He issued demand letter dated 11 August 2016 for reinstatement in service with effect from 18 May 2016 with all consequential benefits. In pursuance of the demand so made, a reference was made by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour to the 11th Labour Court at Mumbai. Respondent No.2 filed his statement of claim and Petitioner-School filed Written Statement. The Petitioner-School questioned the maintainability of the Reference. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. The Labour Court thereafter proceeded to deliver Award dated 18 January 2020 answering the reference in affirmative and directing the Petitioner-School to reinstate the Respondent No.2 on his former post with continuity of service and full backwages with effect from 18 May 2016. Petitioner-School is aggrieved by the decision of the Labour Court and has filed present Petition.

4. Ms. Xavier, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner-School would submit that the Labour Court has erred in answering the reference in affirmative by ignoring the position that Respondent No.2 was merely a contractual employee having no right to see continuation of his contract. That there is cessation of his services on account of non-extension of his contract. That his services are not terminated in any manner. She would take me through the terms and conditions of the origina