( 1 ) ). Heard Mr. Nagesh Sood, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - Corporation and Mr. J. T. Trevedi, learned advocate for respondent - workman.

( 2 ) ). In the present petition, the petitioner Corporation has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference No. 57 / 1996, wherein the the labour court has set aside the termination order and granted only fresh employment without granting any backwages and any consequential benefits. Initially, this Court has issued notice and granted interim relief. Thereafter, Rule came to be issued on 19th October, 2001 and interim relief is ordered to be continued.

( 3 ) ). Learned advocate Mr. Sood appearing on behalf of the petitioner Corporation has raised contention that the respondent workman was employed periodically, temporarily and seasonally. According to the period which has been mentioned in the order, by afflux of time, automatically his services came to an end. Therefore, it is not retrenchment and exception made in Section 2[oo][bb] of the I. D. Act, 1947 will apply and therefore, that cannot be considered to be retrenchment and hence, Section 25-F of the I. D. Act is not applicable to the facts of this case. The second contention which has been raised by learned advocate Mr. Sood that dispute has been raised after period of nine years and therefore, Reference itself is bad and hence, the labour court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such delayed Reference and therefore, the award passed by the labour court is required to be set aside. The third contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Sood that the labour court has not properly appreciated the evidence which was produced by the petitioner Corporation. Learned Advocate Mr. Sood has also submitted that Exh. 16 which has been misinterpreted and misread by the labour court because in the statement, working hours has been mentioned, not working days. In support of his contentions, learned advocate Mr. Sood has relied upon Head Note of decision in case of ANIL BAPURAO KANSE V. KRISHNA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHAN LTD AND ANOTHER reported in 1997 [10] SCC 599 which reads as under :-"labour Court - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Ss. 2[oo] and 25-F "retrenchment" Interpretation of - Seasons worker - An employee engaged in a seasonal work in Chemistry Section of a sugar factory, terminated when the work was over Held, did not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of S. 2[oo] though the employee claimed that he had rendered more than 180 dayss service S. 25-F was therefore not required to be followed. Management however directed to maintain a register for engaging workmen in succeeding seasons according to seniority Engaing of fresh workmen not to b e resorted to unless workmen of previosu season were engaged Words and Phrases "retrenchment" - meaning of. "learned advocate Mr. Sood has also relied on following authorities of the Apex Court as well as this Court. [1] 1996 [10] SCC 599 [2] 2001 [5] SCC 540 [3] 1997 [6] SCC 650 [4] 2001 [1] SCC 424 [5] 2000 [2] SCC 455 [6] 2001 [5] SCC 540 [7] 1997 [11] SCC 521 [8] 2000 [2] GLR 1793

( 4 ) ). Learned advocate Mr. J. T. Trivedi appearing on behalf of the respondent workman has submitted that the petitioner has not raised contention about Section 2[oo][bb] and Section 25-F of the I. D. Act before the labour court. Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi for respondent workman has submitted that the written statement was filed by the petitioner, wherein no such contention has been raised that periodical appointments given to the workman and it is not retrenchment within meaning of Section 2[oo][bb] of the I. D. Act will apply and therefore, Section 25-F is not required to be complied with. If no such contention was raised before the labour court and the same is raised for the first time before this Court, such contention cannot be accepted and entertained by this Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of In