RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner workman seeks quashing/setting aside of the award dated 21st March, 2002 on the following reference:- “Whether the termination of services of Shri Pappu is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?” in favour of the respondent employer on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was contractual within the meaning of Section 2 (oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

2. It was the claim of the petitioner workman before the Labour Court that he had been employed with the respondent employer for two years as a mechanic and his last drawn salary was Rs.750/- p.m.; that he was w.e.f. 1st May, 1989 entitled to wages at Rs.848/- but was not given the same inspite of repeated demand; rather his said demand annoyed the management and when he went for work on 24th March, 1990, he was asked to work on contract basis afresh after terminating his old services; that on his refusal to agree to the same he was terminated from services.

3. The written statement of the respondent employer was/is that the petitioner workman was appointed on 22nd August, 1988 at a salary of Rs.562/- p.m. but his last drawn salary was Rs.750/- p.m.; that the petitioner workman was not entitled to wages at the rate of Rs.848/- p.m.; that the petitioner workman was appointed on a temporary post for a period of three months only and which was extended from time to time and lastly on 21st December, 1989 and expired on 21st March, 1990; thus the petitioner workman was removed from his service w.e.f. the closing hour on 21st March, 1990 and it was a termination by way of contract of employment for a specific period within the meaning of Section 2 (oo)(bb) (supra) and was not a case of retrenchment or dismissal. It was also pleaded that a letter dated 21st March, 1990 to this effect was also served on the petitioner.

4. The matter came up first for hearing on 8th March, 2010; it was enquired from the counsel for the respondent employer as to whether an employer, taking advantage of Section 2 (oo)(bb) of the Act employ all persons on contract for specified period, so as to be relieved of the provisions of the ID Act. Though the counsel for the respondent employer answered in the affirmative but sought time to satisfy. It was further enquired whether it was not incumbent on an employer, to be entitled to avail Section 2 (oo)(bb) of the Act, to establish that the requirement was temporary or for a specified project only. It was further put to him that it appeared to this Court that if the job was of a perennial nature, the employer could not employ therefor under Section 2 (oo)(bb) of the Act. On 10th March, 2010 the counsel for the respondent employer invited attention to the letter dated 22nd August, 1988 of appointment of the petitioner workman. Some of the terms of the said letter relevant for the present purposes are as under:-

“2. You have been appointed for three months on temporary basis. Your employment will be terminated ipsofacto after completion of three months until unless the period is not extended for further time. You will be informed that the period of your services will be extended. If your services will be extended for more than 3 months, then your services will be terminated ipsofacto after the completion of said period in like manner, your temporary appointment can be extended for two years.

3. If your performance in the employment will be found satisfactory during the period of your employment, then you will be kept on permanent basis on the same post, but for this you have to take written orders from the management and further till you will not get that written orders, you will not be treated on the job on permanent basis.

4. After appointing permanent, the services can be terminated by either of the party by giving one month notice or in lieu of notice pay. After receiving a notice from you regarding t