IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 8111 of 2009. Date of Decision : May 26, 2009. Shri Ram Singh c/o Satya Narayan Sharma, A.R., Rajiv Colony, Samaypur Road, Sector-25, Ballabgarh. ....... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Circle-I, Faridabad, and others. ....... Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. J.S. Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 04.11.2008 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Circle-I, Faridabad, vide which the reference has been answered against the workman, holding him not entitled to any relief as termination of the services of the workman, which was purely on contractual basis, was covered under Section 2 (oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Counsel for the petitioner contends that it is an admitted position that the workman was initially appointed on 01.01.2000 and he continued as such till 30.06.2003. He, therefore, contends that the workman had completed more than 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination and without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the services of the workman have been terminated. He on this basis contends that the termination of services of the workman being not as per C.W.P. No. 8111 of 2009. the Act, the finding as recorded by the Labour Court is not justified and the same deserves to be set aside. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case as well as impugned award. Perusal of the record would show and the factual position as has been narrated therein could not be controverted by counsel for the petitioner that the workman was initially appointed on daily wage basis on purely contractual appointment. It is also admitted by counsel for the petitioner that initially the appointment was for a period of one month on contract basis which was renewed on yearly basis. He further admits that on completion of the contract, extension was granted for renewal of the contract but this time, the contract was not renewed. That being the position, the termination of services of the workman is purely on the basis of his terms of appointment. This termination of services of the workman would, therefore, fall under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act where the termination of services of the workman is as a result of non renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman on its expiry and, therefore, would not fall within the meaning of retrenchment as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. The same being so, the provisions as contained in Section 25-F of the Act, would not be applicable to the present case. The findings, therefore, recorded by the Labour Court is fully justified, which do not call for any interference by this Court. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 26, 2009. sjks. -2-