D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Jabalpur Co-operative Milk producers' Union Ltd. is a registered co-operative society and has employed respondent No. 1 for a period of 89 days by order passed on 3. 8. 1985 on the post of Driver. The respondent No. 1 was again appointed by order dated 25. 2. 1987 for a period of 59 days on the same post. The services of the respondent No. 1 were, however, terminated by order issued on 23. 3. 1987 (Annexure-C), The respondent No. 1 approached the Labour Court Jabalpur and the said Court by the impugned award passed on 27. 5 1990 (Annexure-E) set aside the termination of service of respondent No. 1 holding that he was illegally retrenched from services contrary to the provisions of 1. D. Act. The Labour Court also directed his reinstatement in service with full back wages. ( 2 ) THE petitioner as an 'employer', by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution assails the award of the Labour Court firstly on the ground that the petitioner was not a regular employee and had not completed the requisite one year of service so as to be entitled to any retrenchment compensation. The first ground raised has no force On the basis of the evidence led before the Labour Court, it has been found that the respondent no. 1 had completed 240 days of service and was entitled to retrenchment compensation before termination of his service. Any artificial gap by issuing two appointments order has not resulted in actual break of service of respondent No. 1. The Labour Court, therefore, rightly treated the service to be continuous for a period exceeding 240 days. ( 3 ) THE second ground urged by the petitioner/employer is that the appointment of respondent No. 1 was for a fixed or limited duration and it could be terminated for non-renewal of the contract of the appointment under Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the I. D. Act. ( 3 ) THE second ground urged by the petitioner/employer is that the appointment of respondent No. 1 was for a fixed or limited duration and it could be terminated for non-renewal of the contract of the appointment under Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the I. D. Act. The provision of Section 2 (oo) (bb) in the relevant part reads as under 3"termination of the service of the workman as a result of the nonrenewal 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 ) I have carefully looked into the contents of the orders (Annexure-A and B) by which the respondent No. 1 was appointed firstly for 89 days and thereafter for 59 days. It is difficult to read the above two orders as constituting a contract of employment 'a contract of employment envisaged' under Section 2 (oo) (bb) is a bilateral contract to render service or discharge work for a specified period or duration with or without clause of renewal in the instant case, the respondent No. 1 who was in need of service was appointed temporarily for a limited duration. Every appointment, widely understood is a contractual employment, but, every such employment cannot, therefore, be held to be covered by expression 'contract of employment' used in Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the J. D. Act. A unilateral appointment order issued by the employer to the employee with no other option to the employee except to accept the terms of appointment offered, to accept be termed to be a contractual employment for the purpose of Section 2 (oo) (bb) which presupposes a bilateral contract entered into by the parties. The appointment order issued by the employer for a fixed or a limited duration cannot, therefore, be held to be a contract of employment entered into by the parties within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the I. D. Act. ( 5 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the contention advanced by the petitioner/employer cannot be accepted that the services of the respondent No 1 have been terminated because of non-renewal of any contract of employment. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed, but, without any order as to cost. ( 5 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the contention advanced by the petitioner/employer cannot be accepted that the services of the respondent No 1 have been terminated because of non-renewal of any contract of employment. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed, but, without any order as to cost. The amount of security, if any, be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed .