- (1.) Leave granted. We are concerned in this case with the question whether termination of services of the respondent on the expiry of the contract period would amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1948 (for short "the ID Act"). We may refer to the facts in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.5390 of 2012 for disposal of both the appeals, since the question of law involved in both the appeals is the same.
(2.) The respondent in Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No.5390 of 2012 was appointed on daily wages as a helper in the Water Works Department in the appellant Corporation for two fixed periods from 02.05.1988 to 30.06.1988 and 04.07.1988 to 15.07.1988, under two separate office orders dated 19.05.1988 and 01.07.1988. The service of the respondent stood terminated on 15.07.1988 after serving a total period of 54 days. The respondent raised an industrial dispute on 07.12.1989 and the same was referred to Labour Court for adjudication which was registered as Reference (LCB) No.606 of 1989.
(3.) The Labour Court on 18.10.2003 passed an award holding that the Corporation had violated Section 25G and H of the ID Act by not calling the respondent for work before appointing new workmen. The Labour Court then directed the Corporation to reinstate the respondent with continuity in service. Aggrieved by above-mentioned order the Corporation preferred Writ Petition SCA No.3290 of 2004 before the Gujarat High Court. The High Court vide its judgment dated 12.08.2010 set aside the award of the Labour Court and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for fresh consideration. The Labour Court on 15.11.2010 held that the Corporation had violated the provisions of Sections 25G and H of the ID Act and directed the Corporation to reinstate the respondent with continuity in service with consequential benefits. The Corporation then preferred Writ Petition SCA No.7918 of 2011, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 29.06.2011 against which Corporation preferred LPA No.1275 of 2011 which was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the same the Corporation has preferred this appeal.;