S.S. Sodhi, J. - (1.) THE matter here concerns Sub -clause (bb) of Section 2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.) THE two Petitioners Sham Lal and Hakam Singh were employed as labourer and cleaner respectively by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation for a fixed term couple of months at a time. Sham Lal had worked for over two years and Hakam Singh for about 17 months, when no further extension of service was granted to them. This happened before August 19, 1988, when by Act No. 49 of 1984, Sub -section (bb) came to be inserted in Section 2(00) of the Act. It was the case of the Petitioners that as their services had been terminated before the coming into effect of Clause (bb) of Sub -section 2(00) of the Act the termination of their employment entitled them to the benefit of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, and in terms thereof, the termination of their services was illegal.
(3.) A reading of the impugned award of the Labour Court would show that the claim of the Petitioners was negatived on the ground that in view of the insertion of Clause (bb) of Section 2(00) of the Act, termination of services of the Petitioners amounted to retrenchment and they were thus not entitled to the relief sought. It being observed in this behalf that this amendment in the Act had retrospective effect.;