( 1 ) THE short question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the termination of services of the appellant amounted to retrenchment so as to attract the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court before whom the said issue was first raised, in a reference made to it by the Appropriate Government, answered the same in favour of the respondent Management. It held that the termination of the appellant s services were covered by clause 2 (bb) of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial disputes Act and did not, therefore, amount to retrenchment so as to invalidate the same on account of non-payment of retrenchment compensation. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed WP (C) No. 16661/2004 to argue that the order of termination was in essence a device to avoid regularization of services by management. That contention was examined and repelled by the learned single judge holding that since the appointment of the petitioner was only for a limited period and since the termination was necessitated by the appointment of regular incumbents to the post, the same was neither a device nor an attempt to circumven