K.M. Thaker, J.

1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the respondent.

2. In present petition, the petitioner has placed under challenge award dated 21.3.2003 passed by learned Labour Court at Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 884 of 1997 whereby the learned Labour Court dismissed the reference and rejected the relief prayed for by present petitioner.

3. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record and from rival submissions by learned advocates for the contesting parties that present petitioner had raised industrial dispute with the allegation that the opponent board terminated his service illegally and arbitrarily. Appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication by learned Labour Court at Ahmedabad. The dispute came to be registered as Reference (LCA) No. 884 of 1997. The terms of reference required learned Labour Court to decide as to whether the claimant should be reinstated in service on his original post with backwages. So as to justify his demand, the claimant averred and alleged in his statement of claim that he was appointed by the board on 3.8.1994 as Supervisor (Cleaning), however, his position/post was described as Mukadam-cum-Sanitary Inspector. His salary was fixed in pay-scale of Rs. 890-1700 and that he performed his duties regularly, continuously and diligently until 12.9.1995 and thereafter on 13.9.1995, the Dy. Engineer (Civil) of the opponent board terminated his salary by oral instructions without assigning any reasons and without any fault on his part. He also alleged that the opponent board terminated his service without following procedure prescribed by law and in violation of principles of natural justice. The claimant also alleged breach of statutory provisions. With such allegations, the claimant demanded that he should be reinstated in service with all benefits.

3.1 The opponent board opposed the reference. In his written statement, the board contended that the claimant was engaged for a specific work and for specified/limited tenure on temporary and ad-hoc basis on account of exigency of work. The board claimed that in the appointment order, the period for which the claimant was engaged was specifically mentioned and that it was also expressly clarified in the appointment order that the appointment would automatically came to end upon expiry of period of employment mentioned in the appointment order. The board claimed that in view of specific condition in the appointment order, the claimant's appointment was covered under clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that therefore, cessation of claimant's service with the board upon expiry of period mentioned in the appointment order cannot be termed retrenchment and consequently, provision under Section 25F would not be applicable. The board also claimed that after the employment of the claimant came to end in light of specific condition in the appointment order, any other person was not engaged by the board on same post in same department for same work and that therefore, provision under Section 25-H also would not be applicable and the automatic cessation of claimant's service upon expiry of period of appointment cannot be termed as an action in violation of Section 25G or Section 25H. With such contentions, the opponent board opposed the reference and submitted that the reference should be rejected.

3.2 After the parties completed their pleadings, learned Labour Court received and recorded evidence from both sides. Upon conclusion of evidence by both sides, learned Labour Court heard rival submissions and passed impugned award after considering material available on record as well as rival contentions. The learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the claimant was engaged for specific work and for specified/limited period expressly mentioned in the appointment order and that therefore, Section 25F and/or Section 25G a