SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,J. - (1.) Petitioners have preferred this writ petition assailing the award dated 18/05/1989 whereby the reference was answered in favour of the respondent workman holding him entitled to be reinstated in service with back wages and continuity of service and a cost of Rs. 300/- was also awarded.
(2.) The core issue raised by the petitioner is whether the retrenchment would come within the exemption in terms of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not. In support of submission of proving the case within said exemption, learned counsel points out that respondent-workman was appointed on 27/12/1993 for a period of three months. Vide another order dated 14/03/1994, his services were extended for two months and vide order dated 30/04/1995, his services were extended upto 30/09/1995. For the intervening period, between the extension orders dated 14/03/1994 to 30/04/1995, admittedly the petitioner was continued. However, no extension order has been placed either before the Labour Court or this Court.
(3.) In light of the aforesaid extension orders, which were for fixed period, it is submitted that the petitioner was appointed on fixed term basis and lastly upto 30/09/1995 where after his services were dispensed with on completion of the contract. Therefore, in view of the provisions introduced in Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act of 1947, it is submitted that the petitioner could not have been given the benefit of provisions of Section 25-B of the Act of 1947 and there was no requirement to give him notice in terms of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 or compensation thereto as it did not fall within the definition of retrenchment. Learned counsel relies on the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation v. Salimbhai Umarbhai Mansuri: AIR 2013 (SC) 2762 as well as in the case of Excorts Limited, reported in 1997 Labour Law Reporter 699.;