Writ Petition No.6807 of 2011 (s) 02.11.2011 Shri Kuldeep Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Ujjain Development Authority has challenged the award dated 29.03.2011 passed by the Labour Court, Ujjain in Case No.76/2010/ID Act (Reference). Briefly stated the respondent workman raised an industrial dispute about her termination from service by the petitioner. On failure of reconciliation the Deputy Labour Commissioner referred the question as to whether the respondent's termination was legal and valid and if not for what relief she is entitled for and what direction can be issued to the petitioner employer. The parties submitted their pleadings before the Labour Court and led evidence. The respondent workman examined herself whereas the petitioner employer examined one Manoj Kumar Bhatnagar. In her statement the respondent workman stated that she was working as a Labour from February, 2004. On raising a claim before the petitioner for grant of minimum wages her services were terminated by the petitioner vide oral order dated 28.07.2009. According to her, she worked with the petitioner employer for about 5 years and had worked continuously for a period more than 240 days in the year. She alleged that she was not paid retrenchment compensation and she was not even issued notice or not even paid notice pay. She was not giving opportunity of hearing prior to her termination from service and no permission was taken from the Labour Commissioner for her retrenchment. She also stated that principles of 'last come first go' has not been adhered to by the petitioner employer and the workmen who were appointed after her are still working. In rebuttal the petitioner's witness Manoj Kumar Bhatnagar stated that the respondent employee was appointed on contract basis and her last appointment as per the contract was from 02.05.2009 to 29.07.2009. The Labour Court after appreciation of the evidence vide impugned order dated 29.03.2011 held that the respondent workman has been illegally retrenched. A finding has been recorded by the Labour Court that prior to her termination the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in the year and that the procedure for retrenchment was not followed. The Labour Court also drawn adverse inference for non-production of the relevant record by the petitioner employer inspite of the same being summoned on the basis of the applications submitted by the respondent. The Labour Court accordingly held that since the provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act has not been followed the respondent is entitled for reinstatement. The Labour Court denied the backwages taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. It is this order of the Labour Court which is under challenge in this writ petition. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court has committed error in holding that the respondent's termination was an illegal retrenchment. According to him, the respondent's engagement was for a specific period and, therefore, it cannot be termed as an illegal retrenchment. In support he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Darbara Singh AIR 2006 SC 387. On going through the said judgment of the Supreme Court, we find that the same is distinguishable on facts. In that case the workman was appointed on 08.01.1988 to 29.02.1988 with a condition that his working is not found satisfactory or if regular employee joins, his services would be deemed to be terminated without any notice. The period was extended on 07.03.1988 on the same terms. There was further extension on the same terms and conditions on 13.06.1988, 10.11.1988 and 07.04.1989. On making appointment on permanent basis of other employee in terms of his order of engagement his services were dispensed with. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court has stated that the termination of the respondent cannot be said to be illegal. Whereas, in this case it is evident that Labour Court has dealt with this aspect of the matter also and has held that the contract documents are continuous in nature for many years and in the nature of proforma keeping the dates about period of appointment blank to be filled up. Out of the documents Ex-D/ 1 to D/14 many contract documents have been executed after the date of starting of the period. On close scrutiny of these documents, the Labour Court held that they are being executed in order to give artificial breaks to the respondent and on that basis the petitioner cannot circumvent the requirement of law. In the contracts there is no condition that on joining of the regular employee the services shall be terminated. It is also not the case of the petitioner that any permanent employee has joined and, therefore, there is no work. Thus, the judgment of the Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the Labour Court and we find no error in the same warranting interference in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. (Shantanu Kemkar) (Prakash Shrivastava) Judge Judge AM.