wp151.92 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.151 OF 1992. Dnyaneshwar Mahadeorao Palasapagar... PETITIONER. VERSUS Hindustan Ferodo Limited and another. .. RESPONDENTS. ... Shri A.R. Kale, Advocate holding for Shri A.R. Joshi, Advocate for Petitioner. Respondents served – absent. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. 14th DECEMBER, 2010. PER COURT: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that though the petitioner has worked from 4th March, 1986 to 3rd March, 1988 satisfactorily without any complaint and continuously for more than 240 days in a calender year, the respondent Employer terminated services of the petitioner without following the provisions of 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, he would submit that wp151.92 2 the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court is not justified in rejecting the reference filed by the petitioner. He submitted that this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 2. Though the respondent No.1 employer is served and the matter is taken up for final hearing, none appears for the respondent No.1. 3. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned order. It appears that the very appointment of the petitioner was on contractual basis. He was appointed under the terms and conditions of the contract which was at Exh.C-8 before the Labour Court. Therefore, the Labour Court, upon perusal of Exh.C-8, arrived at the conclusion that since the services of the petitioner herein, who was second party before the Labour Court, were as trainee and governed by the contract and therefore, there is no retrenchment or termination of the employee. Therefore, there is no question of following the provisions of wp151.92 3 Section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act and the employee - second party is not entitled to any relief. 4. It is an admitted position that services of the petitioner herein were governed by the terms and conditions of the contract of the employment . Therefore, in my opinion, since the contractual appointment was governed by the terms and conditions therein, as rightly observed by the Labour Court, there was no question of making the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the I.D. Act applicable. Possible view has been taken by the Labour Court on the strength of the material brought before it. No interference is warranted with the impugned judgment and order. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. Record & proceedings be sent back to the concerned court. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. PLK/*