Conclusion :
High Court is having very limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and while exercising such jurisdiction, this Court cannot act as an appellate authority and even if two views are possible, this Court cannot interfere with the same.
Decided in Favour of :
Respondent
Petition Dismissed

H.K. Rathod, J.—Heard learned Advocate Mr. H.J. 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 09.12.2005 published on 31.01.2006 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. H.J. 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 30.09.1993. 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 25-F of the Industrial Disputes 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 23.09.1993, one Mr. B.B. 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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not applicable. He also submitted that by way of an abundant caution, on 15.07.1994, services of the respondent were extended by the petitioner upto 20.07.1994 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 03.08.1994 without prejudice to his rights and contentions. He has produced on record office order dated 27.11.1991, 30.03.1992, 30.06.1992, 29.09.1992, 04.01.1993, 03.04.1993 and 15.07.1994 and calculation of total amount of Rs. 29010.00 considering the salary from 01.10.1993 to 20.07.1994 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 & Anr. vs. Sudesh Kumar Puri, reported in 2007 (2) SCC 428.

(2) State of Rajasthan vs. Sarjeet Singh & Anr., reported in 2006 (8) SCC 508.

(3) Municipal Council, Samrala vs. 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. H.J. Nanavati before this Court.

5. In all the three decisions relied upon learned Advocate Mr. H.J. Nanavati before this Court, the Apex Court has considered the applicability of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes 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 Industrial Disputes 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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is attracted. In Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr., (Supra), that what does not amount to retrenchment was considered by the Apex Court. The engagement of Meter Re