Point of Law: Service - There is no retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act, but, it is end of service due to contractual appointment and, therefore, Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act would be applicable.

JUDGMENT :

[1] The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 14, 16, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the following prayers:

A. Admit the present Special Civil Application;

B. Allow the present Special Civil Application by way of issuing appropriate writ of mandamus or writ of cerritary or any other writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the award dated 19.2.09 passed by the Hon’ble Labour Court at Bhavnagar in Reference [LCB] No.10/04 annexed as ANNEXURE-F by way of holding that the same is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and evidence on record as well as the provisions of the Payment of SECTION 2[oo][bb].

C. Pending the admission, final hearing and disposal of the present Special Civil Application be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the award dated 19.2.09 passed by the Hon’ble Labour Court at Bhavnagar in Reference [LCB] No.10/04 annexed as ANNEXURE – F in the interest of justice;

D. Call for the record and proceeding of the case bearing Reference [LCB] 10/04 from Hon’ble Labour Court at Bhavnagar by way of passing appropriate orders in the interest of justice;

E. Pass such other and further orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may require, in the interest of justice;

[2] It is main contention of the petitioner that the respondent was provided the work as Swimming Instructor for a period of one month on daily wage basis vide order dated 03.06.1992 on several terms and conditions and accordingly, he reported for duty on 03.06.1992. It is contended by the petitioner that the service of the respondent was purely on temporary, ad hoc and daily wage basis and no regular recruitment procedure was followed at that point of time. It is also contended that by order dated 15.07.1992, he was relieved from the service. It is further contended that after almost more than 12 years, the respondent has filed reference in question and asked for relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. It is contended that the respondent has filed statement of claim which was resisted by the petitioner by filing detailed written statement. It is contended that the petitioner has also examined its witness and has also submitted written arguments thereof. It is also contended that the Labour Court has not considered the facts that the provision of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as the “I.D. Act”) was attracted and there was no violation of Section 25F, G and H of the I.D. Act. It is contended that the Labour Court has not considered all there facts in its proper perspective and has erroneously passed the impugned award.

[3] Heard Mr.H. S. Munshaw, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.U. T. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent, at length, through video conferencing.

[4] Mr.H. S. Munshaw, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition. He has submitted that when there was contractual appointment, the provision of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act would applicable and, therefore, there was no question of granting of any reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service to the workman. He has submitted that it was time bound service and, therefore also, the respondent has no right under the provisions of the I.D. Act. He has also referred to the appointment order and relieve order and statement of demand of the workman as well as written statement filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court and has submitted that there was no any breach of Section 25F, G and H of the I.D. Act. While referring to the deposition of the witnesses of the petitioner as well as of the workman, he has submitted that the workman has admitted in his cross-examination that he was appointed only for a period of one month and there was contractual appointment. While referring to the impugned award, he has submitted that there is no