G.R. Udhwani, J.

1. The respective learned counsel have addressed this court at admission stage at length and therefore, by consent, the petition is disposed of finally. Award dated 31.12.2016 passed in Reference (LCD) No. 1 of 2015 by Labour Court, Ahmedabad, made at the instance of the petitioner, a trade union, for four workmen seeking regularization as permanent employee of the respondents herein, has been rejected. Therefore, this petition.

2. Having considered the rival contentions, it appears that a letter dated 11.3.2011 came to be issued to the petitioners praising their timely help to the respondents in restoring the essential service of operating the valve of the water pump for release of the water to a village in Saurashtra and thus met with emergency which was caused by alleged negligence of M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Limited to whom the respondent employer is said to have given the contract earlier for the said purpose. It appears that the workmen had helped the respondents to tide over the crises in the aforesaid background. By the said letter they were temporarily appointed by outsourcing for a period of one year at a monthly pay of Rs. 40,000/- from 11.3.2011 on their application to the respondents as pump operators. Finding the services of the workmen satisfactory, the said period of one year was extended upto 10.3.2013 by office order dated 16.3.2012. On 26.3.2013, another order was issued extending the contract for one year or until the assignment of the work of operation of pump to Gujarat Electricity Board whichever event occurred earlier. This contractual appointment was eventually ended with the expiry of the term of contract and the workmen were ordered to be relieved from the job.

3. What can be noticed from the facts indicated so far is that initially the work of operation of the electrical pumps was given by contract to M/s. Kirloskar Brothers. Undisputedly, the workmen were employees of M/s. Kirloskar Brothers between 2004 and 2011 when they came to be appointed on contractual basis in the manner aforestated. Another significant fact is that they were sounded as back as on 26.3.2013 that their renewed contract would cease either on 10.3.2014 or on the date when the work of operation of electrical pumps is given to Gujarat Electricity Board. It is the case of the respondents that as indicated in the office order dated 26.3.2013 the work has eventually been given to Gujarat Electricity Board and since the said eventuality such work is no more available with the respondent, nor such post is available.

4. In the above backdrop of facts, the Labour Court dismissed the reference principally on the ground that the appointment of the workmen was only contractual appointment and it ended with the end of the work and duration of the contract. This finding of the Labour Court is sought to be challenged by the workmen principally on the ground that the respondents by artificially extending the contract from time to time though the work is of perennial nature, have resorted to unfair trade practice. It is argued that the respondents having not made regular appointment by proper recruitment procedure; substitution of the temporary workmen by other group of temporary workmen is impermissible and would tantamount to unfair labour practice. Reliance is placed upon the decisions in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Marmchari Sanghatana (2009) 8 SCC 556 : LNIND 2009 SC 1741 : 2009-IV-LLJ-286; Dr. S.C. Kaushik v. Union of India and Another (1980) 1 GLR 997 : LNIND 1980 GUJ 152; Director, Health & Family Welfare, Punjab, Chandigarh and Others v. Baljinder Singh and Another 2006 (3) LLN 369 : LNIND 2005 PNH 214 : 2006-II-LLJ-970 and Surat Mahila Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Mamtaben Mahendrabhai Joshi c/o. Sharad S. Pathak 2001(3) LLN 469 : LNIND 2001 GUJ 176 : 2001-II-LLJ-567.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that no unfair labour