1 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL SIDE JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 708 OF 2005 IN WRIT PETITOIN NO.1315 OF 2005 Shashikant B.Soni. ...Appellant. (Org.Petitioner) Vs. Taj Sats Air Catering Ltd. ... Respondent. --- Mr.N.M.Ganguli, for the Appellant. Mr.J.P.Cama, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Geetanjali Prabhu, S.A.K.Nagam, C.S.Soni i/b. M/s.Mulla & Mulla & CBC, for the Respondent. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & V.R.KINGAONKAR,JJ. DATED: 25th MARCH, 2010 P.C.: 1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 2 4.7.2005 in Writ Petition no.1315 of 2005. By that order the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the present appellant challenging the Award passed by the Judge of the Labour Court answering the reference made under Industrial Disputes Act. The reference that was made to the Labour Court was whether the appellant should be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service with effect from 11.10.1997 . This reference was made because the appellant had alleged that he has been illegally retrenched from the services of the respondent. The Labour Court found that there is no retrenchment in relation to the respondent. His services came to an end by efflux of time because he was appointed for fixed time. The learned Single Judge relying on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case Harmohinder Singh Vs. Khaga Canteen, Ambala Cantt., reported at (2001)5 SCC 540 has upheld the Award passed by the Labour Court. The only submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for appellant was that those clauses in the appointment order of the appellant which appointed 3 him for fixed duration are invalid, and therefore, cannot be enforced against the appellant. This contention, admittedly, was not raised either before the Labour Court or before the learned Single Judge. When we pointed out to the learned Counsel that this contention cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in this Court, he submitted that this is a pure question of law, and therefore, should be permitted to be raised here. In our opinion, whether a few clauses in the contract of employment are invalid and are not enforceable for any reason, is essentially a question of fact because even assuming that those clauses are invalid in law, the question will further arise whether the Contract ignoring those clauses is still enforceable and valid or not . In our opinion, this inquiry has to be made before the Court of facts and therefore, that question has to be raised before the Labour Court. 2. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, it will not be in the interest of justice to permit the appellant to raise 4 that question before this Court for the first time. No other question was argued before us. The appeal is, therefore, rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) ...