JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.3.90, passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-respondent Mohan Ram and observed that "the termination of the services of the petitioner with effect from 1.12.88 without passing any formal order, is quashed. The petitioner will be treated to be continuously in service with effect from 1.12.88 and will be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing therefrom. The respondents will be free to terminate his services by complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, if there exists no vacancy and if a clear vacancy does exist in the Office of the respondent No. 2 on which the petitioner's services can be regularised then that action should be taken qua the petitioner." 2. Mohan Ram (the original writ-petitioner) was initially appointed on daily work-charged basis on the payment of Rs. 9/- per day as wages vide order Annexure 1 dated 27.4.84. The period of his employment was extended from time to time. In the year 1985, also, the petitioner was given appointment vide orders dated 12.4.85, 10.5.85, 16.7.85, 29.8.85 and 21.12.85. Every time his services were terminated and he was re-employed. In the year 1986, also, he was given temporary appointments vide orders dated 2.5.86, 5.6.86, 4.7.86,14.8.86, 26.9.86, 7.11.86 and 12.12.86. In the year 1987, initially he was appointed on 18.1.1987. He joined in pursuance of this order on 19.1.87 and worked upto 15.2.87. Later on, he was given fresh appointments vide orders dated 4.3.87, 15-5.87,19.6.87,24.7.87,27.8.87,11.10.87, 19.11.87 and 23.12.87. In the year 1987, he had completed 250 days of service in one calendar year. Lastly, the petitioner was given appointment on 28.6.88 for a period of twenty-eight days. This period was not extended and he continued in this capacity. On 29.11.88, an order was passed by the employer by which the services of Mohan Ram were extended upto 30.11.88. Thereafter his services were not extended and he was, also, not allowed to work. The petitioner challenged his termination of services by way of filing the writ petition. This period was not extended and he continued in this capacity. On 29.11.88, an order was passed by the employer by which the services of Mohan Ram were extended upto 30.11.88. Thereafter his services were not extended and he was, also, not allowed to work. The petitioner challenged his termination of services by way of filing the writ petition. The main contention of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that he worked with the respondent-appellants for more than 240 days in a calendar year and, therefore, before terminating his services, the compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') which are mandatory in nature, was to be made by the employer and as the services of the petitioner have been terminated without following the procedure provided under Section 25-.F of the Act, the removal of the petitioner from the service amounts to 'retrenchment'. The respondent-appellants contested the writ petition on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was for a fixed term and after the expiry of that period as the term, for which he was appointed, the services of the petitioner automatically came to an end and the case of the petitioner is covered by the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. The learned Single Judge did not accept the contention raised by the respondent-employers and held that the removal of the.petitioner from the service amounts to 'retrenchment" and provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act are not attracted and he, therefore, allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, as stated above. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appointment of the petitioner-respondent was for a fixed period which came to an end by the lapse of the time and, therefore, his case falls within the purview of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and it is not a case of 'retrenchment'. The learned counsel for the petitioner (respondent in this appeal), on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The petitioner was initially appointed vide Annexure 1 dated 27.4.84 and the period of his appointment was extended from time to time and lastly he was given appointment on 28.6.88 for a period of twenty-eight days. 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The petitioner was initially appointed vide Annexure 1 dated 27.4.84 and the period of his appointment was extended from time to time and lastly he was given appointment on 28.6.88 for a period of twenty-eight days. He continued in service up to 30.11.88 and thereafter his services were not extended. He has served the respondent-appellants for more than 240 days in a Calendar year and as such the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act do not apply in the present case and it is simply a case of retrenchment and termination of the services of the petitioner, which could have been done only after following the procedure provided under Section 25-F of the Act. Neither any notice nor any retrenchment compensation as required under Section 25-F (a) and (b) of the Act, have been served and paid to the petitioner respondent before his services were terminated. The order of termination of the services of the petitioner was passed in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act and the learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in directing the respondent appellants to reinstate him in service, treat him in continuous service and to regularise his service, as mentioned in the judgment. We do not see any reason to interfere in the order/judgment passed by the learned Single Judge so far as these aspects of the case are concerned. 6. So far as grant of back wages to the petitioner-respondent is concerned, we are of the opinion that it has not been established from record that during this period Mohan Ram was not gainfully employed anywhere else, he was given appointment on the post in question by giving complete go-bye to the procedure provided for appointment on the post in question. We are, therefore, of the opinion that Mohan Ram is not entitled for the back wages and is entitled for the wages from the date of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. In the result, the appeal, filed by the appellants, is partly allowed and the order granting back wages to petitioner-respondent Mohan Ram with effect from the date of filing the writ petition, is quashed and set-aside. 7. In the result, the appeal, filed by the appellants, is partly allowed and the order granting back wages to petitioner-respondent Mohan Ram with effect from the date of filing the writ petition, is quashed and set-aside. The other part of the judgment, passed by the learned Single Judge, is maintained with the modification that Mohan Ram will be entitled for the wages with effect from the date of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.Appeal partly allowed. *******