[1] SAW 718/2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 718/2000 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5050/1992 JAGDISH LAL Vs. THE JUDGE, LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR & ANR. Date: 30.07.2009 HON'BLE MR. R.C. GANDHI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. K.S. CHAUDHARI, J. Mr. S.P. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Dharmendra Pareek for Mr. J.M. Saxena, Advocate for the respondent. **** (ORAL): This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 07.03.2000, whereby Writ Petition No. 5050/1992 has been dismissed. Appellant Jagdish Lal was appointed against the post of Jr. Engineer vide order dated 27.02.1984 initially for a period of three months. Thereafter the term of appointment, on the same terms and conditions, was extended up to 31.01.1986 but after 31.01.1986, the term of appointment was not extended. In such a situation, the appellant approached the Labour Court by way of reference. The Labour Court, Jaipur vide order dated 04.12.1991 observed that the appellant has worked for more than 240 days and his termination from service is without following the procedure as envisaged under Section [2] SAW 718/2000 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947') and directed reinstatement of the appellant with all consequential benefits. Against the order of the Labour Court, writ petition was filed, which came to be allowed vide order, under appeal, considering the judgments of the Supreme Court delivered in (1) M. Venugopal Vs. The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Machilipatnam, Andhara Pradesh & Another, reported in AIR 1994 SC 1343, (2) Escorts Limited Vs. Presiding Officer & Another, reported in (1997) 11 SCC 521 and (3) Uptron India Limited Vs. Shammi Bhan & Another, reported in (1998) 6 SCC 538. These judgments pertain to the preposition of law that if the period of appointment is not extended, the appointment stands terminated by flux of time. The order of the learned Single Judge has been challenged on the ground that the learned Single Judge has not correctly interpreted the scope of Section 2(oo) of the Act of 1947 as it implies to retrenchment. The appeal has been preferred on the same grounds which were set out in the memo of writ petition. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Appellant has filed an additional affidavit stating therein that he does not press other reliefs, but the relief available to him under Rule 14 of the Government of Rajasthan Decisions of [3] SAW 718/2000 Rajasthan Service Rules, that his period of service from 1984 to 1992 be made available to him to be counted for pensionary benefits. We have examined Rule 14, which deals with work-charge employees. The appellant was not a work- charge employee, therefore, the said rule is not applicable to him and the benefits, as prayed for, cannot be extended to the appellant. We do not find any merit in the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (K.S. CHAUDHARI),J. (R.C. GANDHI), ACTG.C.J. /KKC/