1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4100/2007 (Dr.Sanjay Motikisanrao Ganorkar vs. The Jt.Director of Health Services, Pune and others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 14 th November, 2008 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused both the impugned orders in detail. The petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 28 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P Act, 1971, on the ground that the respondents had illegally terminated his services on 29.08.1992 without following mandatory provisions of law. According to petitioner, the provisions of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act had not been complied with before effecting his termination. The petitioner was appointed as a Medical Officer by an order dated 19.2.1988 and his appointment was made in a clear vacancy. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner 2 was temporarily appointed from time to time though the post was clear and vacant and in this background, he had attained the status of the permanent employee after completion of 240 days of continuous service. The respondents had filed their reply to the complaint and had stated in the reply that the appointment of the complainant was purely temporary and it was stated in each appointment order that the services of the complainant would be continued for the term of contract or till a candidate was duly selected by the Selection Board, whichever was earlier. According to the respondents, it could not be said that there was retrenchment in the case of the petitioner, as the case was covered by Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act. The 3rd Labour Court, Nagpur, by the impugned order dated 1.10.2004 held that the petitioner was not entitled for the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages as the termination of his services did not amount to an unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act of 1971. The 3 Labour Court held that the termination of the services of the complainant does not fall within the ambit of provisions of Section 2(oo) of the I.D.Act, but falls within the ambit of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act of 1947, as the appointment of the petitioner was purely on ad-hoc basis during the limited period of contract till a duly selected candidate was appointed by the respondent. The Court further considered that the High Court had while disposing of a writ petition filed by the petitioner observed that the respondent should continue the petitioner in service till the appointment of a duly selected candidate. A similar order was also passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in a original application filed by the petitioner. The order passed by the Labour Court was upheld by the Industrial Court in a revision filed by the petitioner under Section 44 of the Act of 1971. On perusal of the orders passed by both the courts, it is clear that the case of the petitioner was not covered under the provisions of Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act, but was covered by the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. 4 There was no reason whatsoever for the respondents to, therefore, comply with the provisions of Section 25-F and 25-G of the I.D.Act before terminating the services of the petitioner. No fault can be found with the orders passed by both the courts, holding that there was no unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner. For the reasons aforesaid, writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rvjalit