IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1141 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.2.2010 Raj Kumar. -----Appellant Vs. The Presiding Officer and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present:- Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the appellant. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against order of termination from service, relying upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board v. Subhash Chand and another 2006 (2) SCC 794. 2. The appellant was appointed on 89 days basis and when his services were terminated, he raised an industrial dispute on the ground that the same was without following the prescribed procedure. The dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. The Labour Court vide award dated 28.12.2004, LPA No.1141 of 2009 held that the workman had not completed 240 days of service and since he was appointed for a fixed period of 89 days, clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will apply and termination will not amount to ‘retrenchment’. Learned Single Judge upheld the said finding. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in identical circumstances in the case of an employee of the same management in Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board v. Subhash Chand and another (supra), we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 5. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE February 15, 2010 ( AJAY TEWARI ) ashwani JUDGE 2