The exception provided under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which excludes termination of service due to non-renewal of contract, must be interpreted strictly and cannot be applied to cases where the work continues and the non-renewal of the contract is malafide.

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 would amount to retrenchment as defined in Sec.2 (oo) of the Act which is in violation of the provisions of Sec.25-F of the Act.

4. It was also contended that earlier some employees of the respondent Bank approached this Court in Paramjit Chopra V/s. The Kurukshetra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Kurukshetra and Anr. , CWP No.7959 of 1987, on September 1, 1988, and the matter is squarely covered by that decision.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has fairly admitted that the matter is squarely covered by the decision in Paramjit Chopras case (supra) but he contended that in an earlier writ petition provisions of Clause (bb) of Sec.2 (oo) of the Act were not taken into consideration. The learned counsel contends that it is a case of termination of contract of employment in terms of Clause (bb) of Sec.2 (oo) of the Act.

6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and find that the matter is entirely covered by the decision rendered in Paramjit Chopras case (supra ). In that case it was held that a workman who had rendered continuous service with notional break for a period of one year under Sec.25-B (2) of the Act during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of termination of services of the petitioner who had actually worked with the Bank for not less than 240 days, shall be treated to have been in regular employment of the Bank. The termination of services without complying with the provisions of Sec.25-F of the Act was held to be illegal.

7. I. R. Malik has raised an additional legal issue other than those taken in Paramjit Chopras case (supra ). This is with regard to the provision of Sec.2 (oo) (bb) of the Act as amended, which reads as under:-

(oo) "retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the sendee of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include- (a) voluntary retirement of the workman; (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (bb) terminanion of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " Sub-clause (bb) to Clause (oo) of Sec.2 of the Act, which was added in 1984 by an amendment, cannot be so construed as to drastically restrict the orbit of the term of "retrenchment". Clause (bb) is an exception which must be interpreted narrowly. It cannot be given meanings which may nullify or curtail the ambit of the principal clause. No doubt, the intention of t