JUDGMENT
Manju Goel, J.
1. This latter patent appeal is directed against the writ court judgment dated 22nd May, 2001 in Writ Petition (C) No.3256/2001 whereby the writ petition was dismissed and the award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court was upheld.
2. The appellant was engaged as Retainer Crew Driver by the respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation on 6.5.1987. As per the appointment order the appointment was purely temporary and his services were liable to be dispensed with at any time without notice and without assigning any reason therefore. He was to be paid Rs.29/- for the day he was actually given any duty to perform. His service was terminated on 20.12.1988. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court with the following terms:
” Whether the services of Shri Praveen Kumar have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”
3. The appellant challenged his termination on the ground that he had put in more than 240 days in service in one calender year immediately preceding the termination and without conducting any enquiry or charge sheet and his juniors were retained while his services had been terminated which was bad in law. The respondent in defense took the plea that the appellant’s services had been terminated under para 4(14) of the Executive Instructions governing the employment of Retainer Crew Driver and that his work was not satisfactory. The labour court observed that the appellant had not reported for duty for 108 days between 1.1.1988 to 19.12.1988. He referring to the contract of employment including the Executive Instructions found that the management/respondent was not bound to give any notice or any reason for terminating his services and that the termination did not amount to retrenchment and, therefore, could not be said to have been bad on account of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 25(f) lays down the conditions precedent to retrenchment of a workman which include those of notice of one month and payment of retrenchment compensation. Section 2(oo) defines retrenchment to mean termination by an employer of service of a workman for any reason whatsoever otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of a disciplinary proceeding. There are certain exceptions to this definition and the important one for our purpose is clause (bb) namely; ” termination of the services of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein.”
4. In the present case the contract, the respondent says, was terminated under the stipulation contained in the contract itself, namely, that the appellant’s services could be terminated without notice and without assigning any reason therefore. The labour court found that the termination of the services of the appellant was not retrenchment and, therefore, the management was not obliged to fulfilll the conditions of retrenchment as given in Section 25(f) of the Industrial Dispute Act and that he was not entitled to any relief.
5. The award was challenged before the writ court. The writ court also found that the appellant was not entitled to the protection of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the termination of his services did not amount to retrenchment in view of clause (oo) (bb) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
6. There is nothing to differ with the opinion of the labour court and the writ court. Before us the judgment of Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Bhan and Anr.; is cited in which the provisions of Section 25(f) as well as those of Section 2(oo)(bb) came to be considered in detail. In the concluding part of the judgment the Supreme Court had the following to say:
” 32. The contract of employment referred to in the earlier part of clause (bb) has to be the same as is referred to in the latter part. This is clear by the use of words “such contract” in the earlier part of this clause. What the clause, therefore, means is that there should have been a contract of employment for a fixed term between the employer and the workman containing a stipulation that the services could be terminated even before the expiry of the period of contract. If such contract, on the expiry of its original period, is not renewed and the services are terminated as a consequence of that period, it would not amount to “retrenchment”. Similarly, if the services are terminated even before the expiry of the period of contract but in pursuance of a stipulation contained in that contract that the services could be so terminated, then in that case also, the termination would not amount to “retrenchment”. This view finds support from a decision of this court in Escorts Ltd. v. Presiding Officer.”
7. Nothing more is required to say that the labour court as well as the writ court were justified in the view taken by them. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.