Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.

1. Did the petitioner retrench the workman in violation of the provisions contained in Sec.25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ? The petitioner says that the respondents had been appointed on purely ad hoc basis and their services stood terminated on account of non-renewal of the contracts of employment. The Labour Court having rejected the plea of the Management, it has approached this Court through Civil Writ Petition Nos.3952 and 14046 of 1991. Issues in both the petition being similar, these can be disposed of by a common order. A few facts emanating from the record of Civil Writ Petition No.3952 of 1991 may be briefly noticed.

2. On February 9, 1984 the petitioner appointed the second respondent as a Salesman for a period of 89 days on ad hoc basis. The appointment was extended from time to time. Finally, in pursuance to the request made by the respondent vide his letter dated July 10, 1986, his appointment was extended for the period w. e. f. August 4, 1986 to January 30, 1987 for six months on the fixed salary of Rs.500.00 per month. Thereafter, his services stood terminated. However, the workman raised an industrial dispute. The appropria