- (1.) Against an award made by the Labour Court a writ petition was filed before the High Court on the ground that the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) had been engaged on daily wages on purely temporary basis; that in the order of appointment it was mentioned that his services could be terminated at any time without giving notice to him and, therefore, the termination of the services did not amount to retrenchment and that Central Public Works Department is not an industry.
(2.) The High Court held that in view of the decision of this Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Ors. , AIR 1978 SC 969 : 1978 (2) SCC 213 : (1978-I-LLJ-349) , Central Public Works Department could not any longer contend that it was not an industry and that view was further supported by the two other decisions noticed by the High Court. We do not think there is any substance in this argument advanced on behalf of the appellant in this regard.
(3.) On the question whether the termination of services of the respondent would attract the proviso to Section 2 (00) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the High Court had correctly noticed that the same is not applicable to the facts of this case in the absence of fixed term in the order of appointment. That view also appears to be correct. We find no justification to interfere with the order under appeal. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed.;