Non-renewal of contract of employment of a workman, who was appointed for a specific work and period, does not amount to retrenchment and does not confer any right upon such a workman to avail it on the ground of non-compliance of Sec.25-F and to consequential relief of reinstatement.

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 a specific period and for a specific work from February 26, 1985 to December 25, 1987 and in between this period there were a number of breaks in his service and he also worked at different places as well. So, according to the management the workman cannot derive benefit of Sec.25-F of the Act, rather his case falls within the exception as contained in Sub-clause (bb) of Sec.2 (oo) of the Act.

4. Labour Court after considering the evidence adduced and keeping in view the appointment letters issued from time to time came to the conclusion that he was not appointed against a specific job, and so the Court held that the Management has violated the provisions of Sec.25-F of the Act. Labour Court further held that Sarvshri Satish, Sultan and Jai Singh, who were alleged to be juniors to the workman were retained by the Management. Specific reference was made to the statement of Shri V. K. Chakravarti, who did not specifically deny the assertion made by the workman that Sarvshri Satish, Sultan and Jai Singh, workmen, were juniors to him and had been retained in service. Issue No.1 was, thus, decided in favour of the workman. The Labour Court further held that there is no substance in the plea of the Management that workman is covered by the exception (bb) of Sec.2 (oo) of the Act. Consequently, the workman was held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.

5. Management challenged the award of the Labour Court by way of a writ petition. Award of the Labour Court was assailed on the ground that the same is illegal, perverse, against the provisions of the Act and decisions rendered by various Courts and so un-sustainable in law. To put it briefly, the Corporation urged that workman had been engaged for a specific job and for a specific period and so dispensing of such a workman does not amount to retrenchment as had been employed by three different establishments of the Corporation and that too for a specific project. So, on this account too, no such direction could be issued by the Labour Court to take him back in service as well as awarding him back wages.

6. Learned Single Judge on examining various contentions in the light of material on record found no substance and so dismissed the writ petition.

7. Once again the learned counsel for the appellant has pressed almost the same arguments which somehow did not find favour with the learned Single Judge. Counsel for the appellant once again made reference to the appointment letters issued by Ware-housing Corporation from time to time. Counsel drew the attention of the Court to the office order where respondent is shown to have been appointed as a Work-mistry at State Ware-housing Corporation on purely temporary ad hoc basis for a period of three months with effect from the dat