1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITIION NO.5183 OF 2010 1).Maharashtra Rajya Pathya Pustak Bhandar Vitaran Kendra, Nagpur (Bal Bharti), Opposite Science College, Maharajbagh Road, Nagpur. Through Depot Manager 2).Maharashtra Rajya Pathya Pustak Sanshodhan Mandal, Senapati Bapat Marg, Pune, through its Director. ...Petitioners. Versus. Shri Arun Vithobaji Shembekar Age about 39 years, Occupation Service, R/o Plot NO.39, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur. ...Respondent. Shri A.V.Desai, counsel h/f Shri S.S.Ghate, counsel for respondent. Coram : R.K.Deshpande, J. Dated : 5 th April, 2011 Oral Judgment 1. Rule made returnable forthwith by the consent of the parties. 2 2. This petition challenges the Award dated 29.6.2010, passed by the Second Labour Court, Nagpur, answering Reference (IDA) No.19 of 2002, partly in affirmative in favour of the respondent employe. The respondent employee is directed to be reinstated in service with continuity in service from 1.3.2001 with 25% backwages from 1.3.2001, till the date of reinstatement. The employer has preferred this writ petition. 3. The only question involved in this case is, whether it is a case of retrenchment of an employee in terms of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case of the employer is that, it is covered by an exception (bb) of Section 2(oo) i.e. the case of non renewal of contract of employment and hence, it does not amount to retrenchment. The case of the respondent/employee is that he has rendered 240 days of continuous service in the employment, preceding the date of his termination and therefore, compliance of Section 25F was mandatory. 4. Before the Labour Court, the orders of appointment were placed on record. The first order was dated 5.5.1997. It was for the period from 5.5.1997 to 31.5.1997 on the terms and conditions specified therein. The last order of 3 appointment was dated 5.3.2001. It was for the period from 1.3.2001 to 31.3.2001. Similar types of order of appointments were also issued in the interregnum. The Labour Court has recorded the finding that, there were technical breaks, and that it was never contractual employment and the appointment order was extended from time-to-time on the same post. It is the finding recorded that under the guise of contractual employment, the services of the employee are illegally terminated. It has been further held that the employer has failed to lead any evidence about the appointment of employee, as contractual employee. It has been held that retrenchment is covered by the provisions of Section 2(oo) and non compliance of Section 25F being admitted, order of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages was passed. 5. Perusal of the orders of the appointment clearly indicate that, it was a fixed term appointment. At the end of the period of last order of appointment on 31.3.2001, no fresh order of appointment has been issued. In view of this, it was clearly a case of non renewal of contract of employment. The orders of appointment placed on record by the employee itself indicate the tenure of appointment. In view of this, the matter was squarely 4 covered by exception (bb) of Section 2(oo). Hence, the provisions of Section 25F and 25G were not at all attracted. The Labour Court has committed an error in holding that, it was the case of the retrenchment. In view of this, the Award passed by the Labour Court, cannot be sustained. 6. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The Award dated 29.6.2010 passed in Reference (IDA) No.19 of 2002 is hereby quashed and set aside. The reference stands answered in the negative. No order as to costs. JUDGE Bhushan