Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.

1. The petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the respondent-Bank on temporary ad hoc basis for a period of 89 days vide letter dated 19/21st May 1986 and he joined as such on May 21, 1986. The petitioner continued to be in the employment of the respondent-Bank Balbir Singh vs. Kurukshetra Central Coop. Bank Ltd. and Anr. (18.01.1989 -PHHC) Page 2 of 4 gh vs. Kurukshetra Central Coop. Bank Ltd. and Anr. (18.01.1989 -PHHC) Page 2 of 4 upto August 22, 1987 with notional breaks. There were 62 posts of Clerks available with the Bank, despite that the petitioners contract for employment was not renewed. Rather, the Bank issued an advertisement which appeared in daily indian Express dated January 10, 1987 calling applications for the post of clerk.

2. It was contended that even after the initial appointment, the Bank had appointed more clerks and they are still continuing service.

3. Mr. Tacoria, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the respondent-Bank is an Industry and the petitioner is a workman as defined under Sec.2 (j) and 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), termination of services of the petitioner