JUDGMENT 1. - As the issue involved in this writ petition is interpretation of Section 73 of the ESI Act, 1948, a few essential facts would elucidate the nature of controversy. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Grinder in the Assembly Department of CIMMCO Ltd., Bharatpur on 10th August, 1981 on daily wases of Rs. 26/- per day. The agreement of service was to expire on 31st December, 1981. The petitioner met with an accident on 24th December, 1981 as a result of which his left hand thumb was amputed. He remained sick during the period from 24th December, 1981 to 9th May, 1982. The petitioner submitted his joining report on 10th May, 182, but he was not allowed to resume his duty by respondent No. 1. Thereupon, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. In the conciliation no settlement could be arrived at. Consequently, a faiure report was submitted to the Government. The Government vide notification dated 14th Dec., 1982, made a reference which was refer- red to the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur for adjudication. On 31st March, 1983, the petitioner filed a statement of claim and respondent No. 2 filed its written statement. The learned Industrial Tribunal vide award dated 30th September, 1985, dismissed the claim of the petitioner. A Award dated 30th September, 1986, the petitioner hat filed the under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Shri Samdaria, learned counsel for the petitioner raise points in this writ petition: 1. That the termination of the services of the petitioner was in contravention of Section 73 of the ESI Act which bars termination, dismissal or discharge of the workman during the period he remains in receipt of sickness or disablement benefit. 2. The Tribunal committed a serious and patent illegality in computing the number of days of service as on 31st December, 1981. The Tribunal ought to have computed the number of days upto 10th May, 1982 as the petitioner remained disabled and was getting the benefit of ESI upto 9th May, 1982. 4. In fact, the contentions raised by Shri Samdaria, learned counsel for the petitioner, are the same which he had contended before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal vide the Award dated 30th September, 1986, overruled both the contentions of the petitioner. 4. In fact, the contentions raised by Shri Samdaria, learned counsel for the petitioner, are the same which he had contended before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal vide the Award dated 30th September, 1986, overruled both the contentions of the petitioner. There is no dispute between the parties that the petitioner was appointed as Grinder on 10th August, 1981 and the agreement of service was to expire on 31st December, 1981. There is also no document or any oral evidence to the effect that the employer at any time extended the period of service after 31st Dec., 1981. The learned Tribunal, we feel, has rightly held that there is nothing on record to prove that there was an automatic extension of service on 31st December, 1981 merely because of the fact that the petitioner met with an accident on 24th December, 1981. The finding of the Tribunal is as follows: "The agreement of employment which he signed entitled the employee to be in service only until 31.12.81. His employment would have been automatically terminated on 31.12.81 if he had not met with an accident. The period of his employment cannot have in automatic extension on 31.12.81 merely because of the fact that be met with an accident on 24.12.81. It is a case of automatic termination of an employment which is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court (Supra) and which does not attract into application the provisions of Section 73 of the ESI Act." 5. In view of the finding arrived at the learned Tribunal, which is in no way unjustified or illegal, we find no merit in the contention of Shri Samdaria in this regard. 6. Another, rather the main contention raised by Shri Samdaria was that Section 73 creates a bar for discharging or terminating the services of an employee during the period he gets disablement or sickness benefit. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Tribunal that the provisions of Section 73 are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The position of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Buckingham Carnataka Company v. Venkatiya ( AIR 1964 SC 1272 ) , is fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The position of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Buckingham Carnataka Company v. Venkatiya ( AIR 1964 SC 1272 ) , is fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court has clearly observed in that case that Section 73 is not applicable to a case where termination of employee's services follows automatically either from a contract or from a standing order. It was a case where the services of the petitioner were terminated on account of expiry of the contract of employment and it was not a case of dismissal or discharge by way of punishment. Thus, agreeing with the view expressed by the learned Tribunal we hold that the provision of Sections 73 of the Act are not attracted in this case. 7. Thus, we do not find any merit in the contention of Shri Shamdaria in this regard also. Shri Shamdaria, during the course of arguments, also contented that the termination of the services of the petitioner was against Standing Order No. 20 (2) of the Company's Certified Standing Orders inasmuch as it provides that in the case of a daily rated workman 24 hours' notice is required to be given. We do not find any merit in this contention as this clause has no applicability where there is automatic termination of service. 8. In the premises aforesaid, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******