JUDGMENT :

K.M. Thaker, J.

Draft amendment is allowed. Petitioner to carry out the amendment forthwith.

2. In this petition, the petitioner has brought under challenge award dated 6.2.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference (LCJ) No. 180 of 1999.

3. The petitioner was, as per his claim before the Court, aggrieved by his termination w.e.f. 20.4.1981 by oral order. Therefore, he raised industrial dispute which culminated into the aforesaid reference. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner herein filed his statement of claim and categorically asserted that his service was terminated w.e.f. 20.4.1981 by oral order. In paragraph 2 of his statement of claim, the petitioner claimed that after the specified period of employment mentioned in his last appointment letter expired on 19.4.1981, he was not continued in employment and any extension was not granted, and any afresh appointment letter was not issued and thereby, his service came to be terminated w.e.f. 20.4.1981. The petitioner claimed that his service was terminated without following procedure prescribed by law and that in terminating his service, the respondent violated Sections 25(F), 25(G) and 25(H).

4. The reference was contested by the respondent Board. In the written statement, the respondent Board claimed that the service of the petitioner was engaged only on temporary and ad-hoc basis from time to time and whenever he was engaged, appointment letters specifying the period for which he was engaged were invariably issued and upon completion of the period of employment specified in the order, his engagement used to come to an end automatically. It was also claimed by the respondent that during his tenure, the petitioner's behaviour and conduct were rude and therefore, at one point of time, he was relieved, however, upon his representation and after he tendered apology, he was again engaged and subsequently when the period of engagement came to an end, he stood relieved. The respondent Board also claimed that the system of engaging employees on work charge basis has been discontinued in respondent Board.

5. After examining the oral and documentary evidence produced by contesting sides, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner's appointment was made purely on temporary and ad-hoc basis from time to time by issuing appointment orders which contained categorical stipulation about the period for which the petitioner was being engaged. The Labour Court has also noticed that as and when the specified period came to an end, the petitioner's service also used to come to an end. In view of such findings, the Labour Court concluded that the employment of the petitioner was covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that therefore, the provisions under Sections 25(F) and/or 25(G) and/or 25(H) would not be applicable. Having come to such conclusion, the Labour Court has rejected the reference. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner is before this Court.

6. Mr. Thakar, learned advocate has appeared for the petitioner and vehemently argued that the award is, ex-facie, incorrect, arbitrary and contrary to the evidence on record. Mr. Thakar also submitted that the petitioner has been terminated by oral order without following any procedure, though by order dated 27.10.1980 he was inducted in employment in regular manner. The said order dated 27.10.1980 is to be found at page 82 of the paper book of the present petition.

7. Mr. Thaker further submitted that after such appointment, the petitioner was engaged from time to time by the respondent and then, suddenly from 20.4.1981 his service came to be terminated orally. He submitted that the respondent did not conduct any inquiry and/or did not make payment of any compensation before terminating his service. On such grounds, the petitioner has assailed the termination as well as the award of the Labour Court.

8. Despite all vehemence and pains which Mr. Thaker, learned advocate, has sho