IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1568 of 2010. Date of Decision : February 01, 2010. Naresh Kumar ...... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, and another ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Parshotam Lal Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of the impugned award dated 10.12.2007 (Annexure-P-6), passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner, although, had completed more than 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months and persons junior to him have been retained in service, but still the petitioner has been deprived of the benefit merely on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was for a fixed term and was on contract basis. He contends that, although, the appointment of the petitioner may be on contract basis, but by retaining persons junior to him in service, provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short “the Act”) have been violated and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned award. C.W.P. No. 1568 of 2010. -2- It is an admitted position that the petitioner was appointed on purely contract basis and for a fixed term, which was extended from time to time. The persons, who have been retained in service, were persons, who had participated in the selection process and were regularly appointed as per the Rules governing the service. The petitioner also participated in the said selection, but was unsuccessful. None of the persons, who are similarly situated as the petitioner, have been retained in the service. The appointment of the petitioner being on purely contract basis and that too for a fixed term, the findings as recorded by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, that the termination of service of the petitioner would be covered by the provisions of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act is in accordance with law and, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. There is no illegality in the award dated 10.12.2007 (Annexure- P-6), passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, which would call for interference by this Court. Dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE February 01, 2010. sjks.