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 t