N. K. Kapoor, J.

1. Appellant aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court and its affirmation by this Court has preferred this appeal.

2. Naresh Kumar, a Work-mistry, whose service had been dispensed with sought reference and so the Government of Haryana exercising its powers under Sec.10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) referred the dispute between the parties to a Labour Court for adjudication. Labour Court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the impugned termination of services of the workman was invalid? O. P. W. (2) Whether the reference is not tenable for the reasons stated in preliminary objections No.1, 2 and 3 of the written statement? O. P. W. (3) Relief.

3. Management contested the claim of the workman alleging that the same is not maintainable as the respondent-Corporation is not an industry nor the petitioner falls within the definition of a workman. Otherwise too, petitioner was appointed for a specific work and for a specific period and so his case is covered within the exception as contained in Sub-clause (bb) of Sec.2 (oo) of the Act. As per the case set up by the Management, Naresh Kumar was employed for