JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - workman has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned award dated 01.04.2008 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.1674 of 1999, by which the Labour Court has rejected the Reference.

2. Heard learned advocates.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India as well as contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3.2 He has submitted that the Labour Court has patently erred in not coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had joined services with the respondent on 09.02.1994 and has served till 31.03.1999. He has submitted that the learned Labour Court ought to have held that the contractual appointment was a camouflage and as a matter of fact, the petitioner has joined on 09.02.1994 and at that point of time, no order of appointment was issued to the petitioner. He has further submitted that the learned Labour Court ought to have held that the notification of fixed term appointment is already cancelled and therefore, the question of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not apply in the facts of the present case.

3.3 He has further submitted that the learned Labour Court ought to have held that the petitioner was a victim of sexual harassment. He has submitted that though the quashment of the criminal complaint does not prove that the immediate superior Mr.Jagatbhai B. Patel, is innocent, because yardstick in criminal laws and the labour laws is different. He has submitted that the learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate the clinching evidence, which was produced at Exh.35.

3.4 He has further submitted that the learned Labour Court ought to have appreciated that the appointment of the petitioner was not contractual, but it was on permanent. He has further submitted that the learned Labour Court ought to have interpreted the contents of the covering letter issued to the petitioner by senior officer of the respondent dated 15.12.2005, wherein it is specifically mentioned that the appointment is not contractual but on temporary basis. He has further submitted that the learned Labour Court ought to have appreciated that the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act applies only for contractual appointment and that too appointed for a fixed term, but the period of five years cannot be construed to be a fixed term appointment as contemplated under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act.

3.5 He has further submitted that the learned Labour Court has misinterpreted the contents of the contractual appointment because the longtime contractual appointment is also held to be an unfair labour practice and it definitely attracts the provisions of Sections 25(F), (G) and (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . He has further submitted that the learned Labour Court ought to have held that the notification of fixed term appointment is already cancelled as indicated in the averments above, and therefore, the question of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act does not attract in the facts of the present case.

3.6 He has further submitted that the learned Labour Court has ignored the clinching evidence, which proves that the petitioner has continuously worked for five years. He has submitted that the learned Labour Court ought to have held that issuance of the appointment order in form of the contractual appointment is an afterthought, but as per the resolution of the Board of Directors, it was a temporary appointment and therefore, even to the temporary employee, the provisions of Section 25 (F), (G) & (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 get attracted. He has further relied on the the judgment in the case of K.V. Anil Mithra Vs. Shree Sankaracharya Univeristy of Sanskrit reported in 2022 (172) F.L.R. 250