JUDGMENT :

H.K. Rathod, J.

Heard learned advocate Mr. AD Mithani on behalf of petitioner.

2. The petitioner authority has challenged award passed by Labour Court, Kutch at Bhuj in reference no. 68/2003 exh 19 dated 22/5/2009, wherein Labour Court has set aside termination order and granted relief of reinstatement with continuity of service with 25% back wages along with other consequential benefit.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Mithani raised contention before this Court that Labour Court has committed gross error in granting relief in favour of respondent workman. He submitted that Rahpar Area Development Authority is an 'Authority' constituted under the provision of Gujarat Town and Urban Development Act, 1976. The petitioner is statutory body constituted in Indian Statute and Officer thereof are citizen of India.

4. The respondent workman raised industrial disputes, which referred for adjudication before Labour Court, Bhuj mainly submitted by workman that he was working since 3/6/2001 as a Driver with petitioner and his service came to be terminated on 1/7/2003. The copy of statement of claimant is also produced on record by petitioner at page 80 Annexure B.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Mithani submitted that considering vast destruction of human life and property in Kutch Rahpar area, due to devastating earthquake dated 26/1/2001 and for reconstruction and rehabilitation program in said back ground of Truma and devastation, Rahpar Area Development Authority was constituted by Government and notification dated 9/5/2001 published in this regard, which has been produced before Labour Court, Bhuj and also produced along with present petition at Annexure C.

6. The respondent workman has produced appointment order dated 27/6/2001. The said order of appointment vide para 7, thereof specifically stated that appointment was only for term till 31/12/2001. The copy of appointment order is also annexed to present petition at Annexure D page 91.

7. Learned advocate Mr. Mithani relied upon a condition incorporated in appointment order which was issued in favour of respondent workman and according to him, it was an appointment on contract basis upto period 31/12/2001. Thereafter, such appointment will not be extended and it considered to be came to an end.

8. He submitted that in such appointment order, a condition incorporated that even prior to that period, while giving prior notice of seven days, his service can be terminated by petitioner and such condition must have to be accepted by workman. The terms and conditions incorporated in appointment order, which has been accepted by workman is also produced at Annexure E before this Court on stamp paper dated 5/7/2001 at page 95.

9. Learned advocate Mr. Mithani also pointed out that during contract period, workman was remained absent and he was given a notice on 1/5/2003 and 29/5/2003, both are annexed to present petition at Annexure F.

10. Learned advocate Mr. Mithani also raised contention that on contract basis for specific time period, respondent was appointed by petitioner and on issuance of notice in reference case petitioner had appeared vide exh 10 which copy of written statement also produced along with petition at Annexure G.

11. He submitted that in written statement a specific fact made it clear by petitioner in para 8 that appointment made by petitioner of respondent workman is for limited period on certain condition, which has been accepted by workman. Initially, it was for a period of six months, which was extended and came to an end in June 2002. Thereafter, further period was extended upto 30/6/2003 and after aforesaid period is over, his service has been automatically came to an end. Therefore, question of compliance of provision of Section 25 F by petitioner, does not arise. The workman has filed affidavit as oral evidence on 12/8/2004 and three years thereafter, respondent herein appears to have produced certain documents before Labour Court, Bhuj. The respondent workman cross examined by p