- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned award of the Labour Court, dated 4. 11. 92.
(2.) I have heard Learned counsel for the parities and perused the impugned award. The reference order was as to whether the termination of the service of respondent No. 2 with effect from 4. 1. 84 was valid. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the appointment letter dated 4. 1. 83, true copy of which isannexure-1 to the writ petition. He submitted that the said letter states that the petitioner's ap pointment was for a period of one year and hence he argued that it is not case of retrenchment in view of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Dispute Act. It may be noted that clause (bb) was inserted u/s S. 2 (oo) by Act 49 of 1984 with effect from 18. 8. 1984. Hence this amendment did not exist on 4. 1. 1984 when the services of the respondent No. 2 was terminated. Hence Clause (bb) will not apply to the facts of the present case as it has no retrospective operation. Since the respondent No. 2 had worked for one year i. e. more than 240 days as held in the impugned award Section 6 N of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act was violated vide State Bank of India v. Sundar Money, AIR 1976 S. C. 1111. Thus, there is no infir mity in the impugned award. The writ peti tion is dismissed. Petition dismissed .;