It is not a closure but retrenchment u/s 2(oo) of the Act.

AR.Lakshmanan, J.

This writ appeal is directed against the Order of a learned single Judge of this Court, dated 22. 1994 in W.P.No.2336 of 1992.

2. The appellant was temporarily engaged as a watchman under N.M.R. to watch the godown where the materials for the construction of the building at Tribal Research Centre of the Tamil University, Udhagamandalam were stored. He was first engaged for 80 days from 5. 1986 on a daily wages of Rs.15. Subsequently, on different dates with different intervals in between, he was similarly engaged for 80 days at a time. After the expiry of every temporary appointment of 80 days, he was relieved and was reemployed for further periods after a gap of one week or so, as the case may be. The appellant’s services were finally terminated with effect from 8. 1989, by the proceedings of the 1st respondent, dated 8. 1989 in Na.Ka.No.P2/907/87on212. 1989, the appellant requested the 1 st respondent to employ him either in the Tribal Research Centre, Udhagamandalam or in any other centre of the Tamil University and continue his services as a Watchman. He also raised a dispute before the 3rd respondent viz., Labour Officer, Udhagamandalam, who, by his order dated 24. 1991 rejected his request by accepting the statement of the 2nd respondent/Director of the Tribal Research Centre, Udhagamandalam before him dated 24. 1991.

3. The statement of the 2nd respondent made before the 3rd respondent reads thus:

"...It may kindly be noted that when our University was constructing some quarters at M.Palada of Nanjanad village, Ootacamund Taluk we had temporarily engaged the service of P.Shanmughanathari under N.M.R. as a Watchman for the godown in which the building materials were stored. He was first engaged for 80 days from 5. 1986 to 20.7.1986 on a daily wage of Rs.15. Subsequently, on different dates with different intervals in between, he was similarly engaged for 80 days at a time. After the expiry of every temporary appointment of 80 days he was relieved and when necessity arose he was re-employed for further temporary period after a gap of a week or so as the case may be. Such temporary appointment had come to an end with effect from 8. 1989 as the buildings had in the meanwhile been completed and the University did not require his temporary services as the Watchman thereafter for the godown. He has never been a permanent worker and/or employee of the University. As stated above, his appointment was purely temporary and that too as a Watchman to watch the building materials stored in godown in the night time so that there are no thefts. We would like to make it clear that at no point of time his services under us have exceeded a period of 80 days and there has always been a break of several days before his temporary appointment for a further period 80 days. In view of the facts set out above, you will appreciate that the question of dismissal from service and/or the question of payment of any compensation and/or retrenchment benefit does not arise..."

.4. The appellant, aggrieved by the Order of the 1st respondent, dated 8. 1989 and the Order of the 3rd respondent, dated 24. 1991, filed W.P.No.2336 of 1992 for the following relief:

."To issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions calling for the records on the file of the respondents and quash the order of the 1st respondent dated 8. 1989 passed in Na.Ka.P2/907/97 and order in O.M.No.2034/90 dated 24. 1991 passed by the 3rd respondent and consequential direction directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with backwages and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deed fit." 4. According to the appellant, he was engaged by the Tamil University as a watchman for the godown at Udhagamandalam from 5. 1986 to 8. 1989. Originally he was engaged on a daily wages of Rs.15 and subsequently, his daily wages was increased to Rs.140. The details of the temporary appointment are a