Manmohan Singh, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ/ order/ direction for quashing the reference made by Delhi Administration dated 11.12.1992 and the consequent order dated 07.12.2005 passed by the Labour Court XII, Karkardooma, Delhi in I.D. No. 10/93 by which the Presiding Officer directed reinstatement of the respondent without any back wages.

2. The brief facts leading up to the filing of the present petition are that the respondent No. 1 applied at the Petitioner University for the post of Assistant Clerk of Works (elect) and was employed w.e.f. 22.09.1973 with a consolidated salary of Rs. 450/- per month.

3. The work entrusted to the respondent No. 1 was supervision of construction of various buildings carried out by contractors in the University. As per petitioner, the job was temporary and liable to be terminated by either side with one months notice or on payment of one month's salary as the case may be. The respondent No. 1 entered into a service contract on 07.07.1975 which marked the end of the original temporary appointment between the parties and the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was thereafter governed by the said service contract. The service contract was renewed time and again for about 15 years without any objection from either party.

4. In 1988-89 the petitioner decided to hand over the construction work to CPWD and therefore, had no need for supervisory staff looking over the construction process. The last renewal of the service contract vis--vis the respondent was vide an office memo dated 02.01.1989 and was for a period of three months only, expiring on 31.03.1989.

5. After being relieved from the post on 31.03.1989 the respondent No. 1 applied for his terminal benefits and the same were duly paid by the petitioner.

6. Thereafter in 1991 the petitioner advertised for the post of a Junior Engineer (Elect) and informed respondent No. 1 that he may formally apply for the same. Of the 25 persons who were shortlisted and appeared for the interview (including the respondent), none was selected.

7. The post was re-advertised in 1993, but this time respondent No. 1 did not apply and therefore could not be selected and a candidate as per the recommendations was selected.

8. Thereafter on receiving an application from respondent No. 1 a reference was made by the Delhi Administration to the Labour Court who passed the award thereby directing the reinstatement of respondent No. 1 on the same post by its order dated 07.12.2005 with seniority and other consequential benefits.

9. The petitioner has challenged the order/award dated 7th December, 2005 by filing the present writ petition on various grounds.

10. Concisely, the grounds set out by the petitioner for quashing the Labour Court's order dated 07.12.2005 can be read as under:

(i) The Labour Court did not appreciate that the respondent was employed with the petitioner University under a service contract which was duly signed and admitted by him. No reliance ought to have been placed on the original appointment of 1973 as the same had been superseded by the specific service contract in 1975 and the same was acted upon by both parties for about 15 years;

(ii) There is no allegation by respondent No. 1 that he signed the service contract under duress or fraud and therefore the said contract should have been given effect to;

(iii) The Labour Court did not rely upon the documents proving that the respondent No. 1 was engaged on a contract basis i.e. the service contract and various office orders extending the same;

(iv) The admissions made by respondent No. 1 in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Statement of Claim have been ignored and the finding that there was nothing to prove that the respondent's appointment was for a fixed period of time is erroneous;

(v) The finding vis--vis compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is erroneous as the