Manmohan, J.

1 Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and orderdated 24th April, 2005 passed in W.P.(C) 830/2003 whereby the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has remanded the matter back to the Labour Court for read judication.

2 The brief facts of the present case are that the Respondent-workman was working with the Appellant as a Peon w.e.f. 12th September 1989 and worked continuously without break till 18th June, 1990. The workman initially worked for the period from 12th September, 1989 to 07th May, 1999, as a daily wager and thereafter, on 08th May, 1990 he was issued an appointment letter. The Clause 2 of the appointment letter reads as under:

You will be on probation for a period of one year which may be extended at the absolute discretion of the Management. On satisfactory completion of the period of probation, your services will be confirmed in writing.

3 The Appellant vide letter 18th June, 1990 terminated the services of Respondent. The matter was referred to the Labour Court wherein it was held that the termination of the Respondent workman was not retrenchment but was governed under the exception to the definition of retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). The said section is reproduced herein below:

2 (oo) "retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include -

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or

xxx xxx xxx

2(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-removal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein.

(Emphasis Supplied)

4. The relevant portion of the award passed by the Labour Court is as under:

9. The termination of services of the Claimant was w.e.f. 19.6.90 under Clause III made vide letter Ext. WW1/2. Since the Claimant himself has relied upon the letter of appointment Ex.t WW1/1, he cannot escape from the services conditions as were imposed against him vide Clause II as above. It is not a case of the Claimant that appointment letter Ext. WW1/1 was issued as a colour-ful exercise so as to terminate his service and to violate with impunity the mandate of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. It being so, the termination of the services of the Claimant vide letter Ext. WW1/2 is not at all a case of retrenchment so as to call for compliance of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. The termination of the Claimant is government under exception to Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act.

5. Being aggrieved, the Respondent-workman filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 830/2003 whereby the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition remanded the matter back to the Labour Court. Hence this appeal.

6. Mr. A.P. Dhamija, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the workman was appointed on probation of one year as per the appointment letter dated 08th May, 1990 and as his termination was during the probation period, it did not amount to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Act. Mr. Dhamija further submitted that the workman did not work for requisite 240 days as daily wager which is mandatory to get the benefit under Section 25F of the Act. To emphasis his submission, he placed reliance upon the judgments in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1964) 3 SCR 616, Escorts Ltd. v. Presiding Officer and Anr. (1997) 11 SCC 521 and Kalyani Sharp Indi Ltd. v. Labour Court No. 1 Gwalior and Anr. (2002) 9 SCC 655.

7. Mr. Arun Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the appointment letter was a colourable exercise of power done with malafide intent to terminate the Respondent's services.

8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record