( 1 ) THE petitioner - Gujarat Pollution control Board is before this Court under article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the award dtd. 2/1 1/1998 passed by the learned Special Labour court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCIDAT)No. 27 of 1997 (Old Reference No. 362 of 1993), directing reinstatement of respondent workman with 100% back wages and consequential benefits.

( 2 ) SHORT facts necessary for disposal of the present writ application are that the petitioner was appointed as a temporary driver by the petitioner Board under separate orders. The orders were to run for a period of 29 or less days. The respondent was appointed on 22/9/1989 and with artificial break, continued upto 1/2/1991. Thereafter, under some order which is not placed on the records and as alleged by the petitioner, the respondent was appointed in gems Minar Project w. e. f. 2/2/1991 and worked upto 24/7/1991. After a break of 53 days, he was reappointed on 17/9/1991 and again with some break, he was ultimately removed from service on 20/12/1991. The workman being aggrieved by the said action on the part of the employer, obtained a reference and submitted before the Labour court that as he had worked for 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding the date of retrenchment the order should be held to be bad and he was entitled to reliefs under law.

( 3 ) PRESENT petitioner, after notice filed its appearance and submitted the written statement. They submitted that though originally the respondent workman was appointed with the Board but later on he was appointed in Gems Minar project and as his appointment was for a specific period for a specific project, the workman was not entitled to any relief. They also submitted that in view of the break of 53 days in the continuity of service, the workman could not be held to be in continuous service for a period of 240 days.

( 4 ) AFTER recording evidence and hearing the parties, learned Trial Court held that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding the date of retrenchment, therefore, the removal was violative of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act" for short ). The Court also found that the respondent workman was entitled to 100% back wages with continuity of service and other consequential benefits. Being aggrieved by the said award, the Board is before this Court.

( 5 ) MR. CHAUHAN, learned counsel for the petitioner Board had raised manifold arguments in support of the writ application which I shall take one after other.

( 6 ) MR. CHAUHAN submitted that as the respondent workman was appointed on a special project for a specified period, provisions of Section 2 (oo) and Section 2 (bb) of the Act would be applicable and termination of the services of the workman would not be treated to be a retrenchment. Unfortunately, the argument is based upon a foundation which is yet to be founded. It was vehemently argued that the project was funded by the Central Government, therefore, it was a specific project, but nobody knows what were the terms of such funding, whether the project was a baby of present petitioner Board and only financial assistance was to be provided by the Central government or it was a project of the central Government which was simply to be looked after by the petitioner Board and as such the petitioner Board had no responsibility. From various orders annexed with the writ application, it would clearly appear that the petitioner Board was the appointing authority. It also appears that persons who were working in the regular cadre or who were on the roll of present petitioner as temporary / ad-hoc / daily wagers, were shifted from their regular jobs to the jobs in the project. If the provisions of Sction 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act are to be applied then, one has to prove that the employment was for a fixed period and the termination of the service of the workman was not as a result of the non-renewal of the contract o