The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of the respondent's service amounted to retrenchment as there was no break in his service, and the petitioner's actions suggested an ulterior motive to avoid compliance with section 25f of the ID Act, 1947.

( 1 ) HEARD learned Advocate Mr. HJ Nanavati for petitioner Management and Ms. Hina Desai, learned Advocate for the respondent workman.

( 2 ) THROUGH this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the award made by the labour court, Ahmedabad in Reference NO. 357 of 1994 dated 9th December, 2005 published on 31st January, 2006 wherein the labour court has granted reinstatement in service with continuity of service with full back wages for interim period with consequential benefits and costs of Rs. 500. 00.

( 3 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. HJ Nanavati for the petitioner submitted that the labour court has committed gross error in allowing the reference made at the instance of the respondent workman. As per his submission, the services of the respondent workman were not terminated by the petitioner but as per the appointment, his services were coming to an end automatically on 30th September, 1993. He submitted that as the period of appointment was coming to an end automatically, respondent workman has not reported for work. He submitted that the provisions of section 25f of the ID Act, 1947 are not applicable as the respondent was being given the periodical appointment orders and on each occasion, his services were coming to an end automatically and new order of appointment was being given to the respondent by the petitioner. On 23rd September, 1993, one Mr. BB Patel was reinstated and, therefore, appointment of the petitioner was not extended by the petitioner and, therefore, such termination is not covered by the definition of retrenchment and, therefore, section 25-F of the ID Act, 1947 is not applicable. He also submitted that by way of an abundant caution, on 15th July, 1994, services of the respondent were extended by the petitioner upto 20th July, 1994 and payment was made of Rs. 29010. 00 by way of Demand Draft drawn on Punjab National Bank which was accepted by the respondent workman on 3rd August, 1994 without prejudice to his rights and contentions. He has produced on record office order dated 27. 11. 1991, 30. 3. 92, 30. 6. 92, 29. 9. 92, 4. 1. 93, 3. 4. 93 and 15th July, 1994 and calculation of total amount of Rs. 29010. 00 considering the salary from 1st October, 1993 to July 20, 1994 as well as leave salary, one month salary and bonus for the year 1992-93. Copy of the said documents have been supplied to learned Advocate Ms. Hina Desai by learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati and, therefore, same have been taken into consideration by this court. Learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati relied upon the following three decisions of the apex Court:

(1) Punjab State Electricity Board and another versus Sudesh Kumar Puri, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 428. (2) State of Rajasthan versus Sarjeet Singh and another reported in (2006) 8 SCC 508. (3) Municipal Council, Samrala versus Sukhvinder Kaur reported in (2006) 6 SCC 516.

( 4 ) I have considered the submissions as well as the aforesaid three decisions referred to and relied upon by learned Advocate Mr. HJ Nanavati before this court.

( 5 ) IN all the three decisions relied upon by learned Advocate Mr. HJ Nanavati before this Court, the apex court has considered the applicability of section 2 (oo) (bb) of the ID Act, 1947. As per the said decisions of the apex court, if any workman has been appointed on contractual and temporary basis with condition that his services could be terminated without notice and while accepting such terms and conditions incorporated in the order of appointment without any demur, in such cases, provisions of section 2 (oo) (bb) of the ID Act, 1947 are applicable. It has also been considered by the apex court that when the appointment on fixed term basis is followed by further fixed term appointment on the same basis, then, section 2 (oo) (bb) of the ID Act, 1947 is attracted. In Punjab State Electricity Board and another (supra), that what does not amount to retrenchment was considered by the apex court. The engagement of Meter Read

Click Here to Read the rest of this document