- (1.) The petitioner-workman is aggrieved by the award dated 17.3.2006 passed by respondent No. 1 vide which his claim for re-instatement and other benefits has been dismissed. The Labour Court, while dismissing the claim of the petitioner, held that since the services of the workman were on contract basis, for a fixed period, it automatically comes to an end as per the terms of the letter of contract executed between the parties. His discharge did not amount to retrenchment in view of exceptional clause (bb) to Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act). Feeling dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the paper book.
(3.) The counsel for the petitioner-workman has argued that the petitioner had served the respondent No. 2-management for more than 240 days in 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. Therefore, his termination is bad due to non-compliance of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Moreover, the work existed with the management when the services of petitioner were terminated. It has further been argued that the Labour Court has fallen into error of law in not considering the definition of retrenchment as contained in Section 2(oo) of the Act.;