V. Bahuguna, J. - (1.) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the award of the Labour Court, Allahabad, dated 17 -6- 93. The Labour Court has held that the petitioner had illegally terminated the services of the respondeat no. 2 on 30-6-79 and as such the workman was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. The Labour Court recorded a finding that the respondent no. 2 had worked with the petitioner for more than 240 days as such he was entitled to protection under section 6-N of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act as such the services of the respondent no. 2 could not be dispensed with without paying retrenchment notice. The Labour Court held that the termination order was bad in law and the workman was entitled to the relief of reinstatment. The contention of the petitioner was that the workman was employed for a specific period and as such his case was covered by the provisions of Clause A of section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1971 and as such no notice for terminating the services of a workman was necessary.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed for a fixed period of three months on the following dates : 15-12-77, 2-8-78. 6-11-78, 30-1-79 and 25-5-69. In the aforesaid appointment orders it was clearly mentioned that the petitioner's appointment will come to an end after the expiry of the period mentioned in the appointment letters. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance op the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal No. 5416 of 1993 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7592 of 1.993, U. P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank v. Taj Mulk Ansari, decided on 11th October, 1993. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in Writ Petition No. 615 of 1983, Taj Mulk Ansari v. U. P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd., in which this Court had allowed the writ petition and directed reinstatement of the workman on the ground that he had worked for more than 240 days. The Supreme Court has held that the mere fact that the workman had to put for more than 240 days as daily rated employes does not entitled him for regularisation in his employment. In the present case at the services of the workman was for at fixed period of three months as such his services came to an end after the expiry of the said period and as such in view of the proviso to Clause (a) of section 5 (N) no notice for terminating the services was necessary. The counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court, F. R. Jesuratnam v. Union of India. 1981 SCC (L and S) 528 (1981) 3 SCC 525. As the workman was appointed for a fixed period of three months, his services came to an end automatically after the expiry of the contract period and as such no notice for terminating the services under section 6-N of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is necessary. The case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court and as such the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Labour Court dated 17-5-93 is set aside., Petition allowed.;