1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 25.5.2006 passed by Labour Court No.II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby the claim of the petitioner that his disengagement amounted to illegal retrenchment was dismissed by the Labour Court without serving notice on the management.

2. The petitioner was employed by the respondent as a Data Entry Operator. His employment was on contractual basis on the consolidated amount of Rs.2500/- p.m. He was engaged by the respondent at the request of the Ministry for deputing a person to Parliament Cell to do the work of data entry due to a conference 'The Housing-Challenges and Solutions'. This appointment was made on 27.5.1998 and the petitioner after appointment was deputed in the Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment to do the work of data entry. The contractual appointment was initially for a period of six months and was extended from time to time. His last extension was w.e.f. 1.7.2003 for a period of six months. His appointment as a Data Entry Operator came to an end in December, 2003 and in December, 2003 he was given a contract assignment as a Helper (Data Entry). This assignment continued on contract basis on a consolidated renumeration of Rs.4500/- p.m. upto the first week of October, 2005 whereafter the contract was not renewed. The petitioner raised industrial dispute alleging that he has been illegally terminated.

3. The letter of appointment issued to the petitioner reads as follows: “F.5(194)/96-HRD May 28, 1999 Shri Nand Lal 380, Sector-II Type II, Sadiq Nagar New Delhi-110049

Sir,

We are pleased to offer you a contract assignment as Data Entry Operator for the period commencing from may 5, 1999 to July 31, 1999 in connection with work related to data entry jobs of temporary nature, on the following terms and conditions:

The other terms and conditions will be as follows:

i.You will be paid a monthly consolidated remuneration of Rs.2500/- (Rs.Two Hundred Five Hundred only) per month.

ii.You will not be entitled to any other benefit and concessions during the period of this contract.

iii.You will be expected to carry out all such duties as may be assigned by the Executive Director (Management Services), HUDCO.

iv.Your assignment is purely on contract basis for the specific period indicated above and you will have no claim for any employment in this Corporatioin.

v.HUDCO reserved that right to terminate the contract with or without any notice.

A copy of this letter duly signed in acceptance of the terms and conditions specified above, may be returned to the undersigned within 10 days of the receipt of this letter, failing which the letter shall be treated as withdrawn.

Thanking you,”

3. The Tribunal held that the contract of employment was a temporary contract consciously entered into by the workman for a job of temporary nature. The termination of the workman on expiry of contract period did not give any right to the workman to claim reinstatement and dismissed the claim of petitioner without service of notice to him.

4. It is not disputed that services of petitioner were hired for specific purpose because of exigencies of work. He was hired on contract basis and it was made clear to him in the very beginning that he was being given a contractual employment for a specific period. The contract was renewed only till the period the work existed. Once the exigency was over and there was no further work, the contract was terminated. Such a termination is covered under section 2(oo)(bb) of Industrial Disputes Act and does not amount to retrenchment.

5. In Batala Cooperative Sugar Mill vs. Swaran Singh 2006 SCC(LandS) 11, Supreme Court observed that where a person is appointed on daily wages for a specific work and for a specific period, Section 22(oo)(bb) of I. D. Act was attracted and if after the specific work, the services are terminated, it is not a case of retrenchment. In Punjab State Electricity Board vs. Darshan Singh 2006 SCC