ORDER

Sahai, J. - Daily Wagers of Allahabad University Working continuously for last five years without any break, mainly in its Library section, have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court against termination of their services by the Librarian as invalid and void since they, having worked for more than 240 days became regular employees whose services could not be dispensed with except in accordance with procedure provided under Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. In the initial stages of arguments attempt was made to dispute applicability of the Act to University but later on it was given up. therefore, controversy narrowed down to if termination of petitioners' services did not amount to retrenchment within meaning of Cl. (oo) of Section 2 of the Act as it had come to an end because of expiry of term of contract entered between University. the employers and petitioners, the employees, as provided in sub-cl. (bb) of Cl. (oo) added in 1984.

3. That termination of service of a workman who has worked for not less than 240 days within a period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of termination without paying retrenchment compensation or following procedure provided under law is void which entitles a workman not only to reinstatement but also to a declaration for continuing in service with back wages is settled beyond dispute. Therefore, defence was twofold, one factual and other legal. It was urged that petitioners were not in continuous service. But that stands belied by various orders issued from time to time, and absence of specific averment establishing break in service in respect of any petitioner. In fact the plea had legal overtone as it was urged that contract of employment was renewed every quarter or six month, therefore, every expiry of stipulated period of agreement resulted in break of service. From this flowed the principal submission as well namely services of petitioners being contractual and the contract of employment having been renewed every third or six month they could not claim to have acquired status of regular, permanent or even temporary employee as their services came to an end automatically after expiry of the term for which they were appointed. Reliance was placed on sub-cl. (bb) of Cl. (oo) of Section 2 of the Act and it was urged that termination of service of a workman because of non-renewal of contract on expiry of the term stipulated in agreement as was in case of petitioners, could not be deemed to be retrenchment, as such petitioners were not entitled to claim any protection under the Act. It was also urged that since petitioners were working against post which had not been sanctioned their status was of irregular employees who did not acquire any status either under Statute framed by University or the Act, consequently they were not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction under Articles 226 of this Court.

4. Section 2(oo) of the Act reads as under:

""retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service 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;

or

(b) retirement of the workman on"reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of 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

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health."

5. The expression, 'termination for whatsoever reason' used in CL (oo) came up for interpretation before Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. N. S. Money, AIR 1976 SC 1111 . It was held to mean a termination which takes place either by active step o