Judgment MEHTAB S. GILL, J. 1. Both these writ petitions bearing Nos.9471 and 9472 of 1999 arise out of the award, dated August 26, 1998 (Annexure P3) passed by respondent No.1 the Presiding Officer, labour Court-II, Faridabad, and they are being heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. 2. Petitioner-workman has filed a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of certiorari for quashing the award dated August 26, 1998 (Annexure P3)passed by respondent No.1, the Presiding officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad. 3. Petitioner-workman has averred that he was appointed as a chowkidar on May 25, 1993. No appointment letter was issued to him and he continued in service till April 26, 1994. His salary was Rs.1056.00 per month. He was not allowed to work and no retrenchment notice or compensation was granted to him. Later on, petitioner-workman filed a case against the management under the Payment of Wages Act for the period from March 1, 1994 to April 26, 1994. The Authority under the Payment of wages Act awarded salary to the workman for the above said period. Aggrieved with this order, the management filed an appeal before the District Judge, Faridabad, who dismissed the same vide order, dated April 25, 1998 (Annexure P4 ). In spite of this, the Labour court, Faridabad, has recorded a finding that the petitioner-workman did not work for 240 days and has also erred in observing that the case of management was covered under Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act. ). 4. Notice of motion was issued to the respondents. 5. We have heard Sri R. K. Malik, advocate, assisted by Sri Jagbir Malik, advocate, for the petitioner and Sri Hemant kumar, advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the petition and the annexures attached therewith. 6. ). 4. Notice of motion was issued to the respondents. 5. We have heard Sri R. K. Malik, advocate, assisted by Sri Jagbir Malik, advocate, for the petitioner and Sri Hemant kumar, advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the petition and the annexures attached therewith. 6. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the document, Exhibit MW 1/2 issued by the managing Director the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under: "in view of the heavy stocks lying in open, the request of the District Manager, Confed district Office, Faridabad was considered and sanction is hereby accorded to District manager, Confed District Office, faridabad, to keep three chowkidars for hasanpur and five labourers at Faridabad on contract basis till the stocks are disposed of or for a period of three months. They may be paid at D. C. rate. The number of chowkidars/labourers kept by him should come down with the clearance of stocks lying in open. " 7. Written statement has been filed by the respondent No.2 the Haryana State Federation of Consumer Co-operative Whole Sales Stores ltd. , Faridabad through its District Manager before the Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad, which has been attached with the petition as annexure P2. The stand taken up by the respondent in Para.3 in the preliminary objections of the written statement is reproduced as under: "that the workman was employed on purely casual basis on daily contract rate to look after the wheat stock lying open in the hasanpur Mandi for a short period. Subsequently, the wheat stocks were lifted and the entire management of stocking and the custody was handed over to Haryana warehousing Corporation and the rental was paid by the Confed due to change in policy of the respondent. Due to change in policy the services of the workman as chowkidar were no more required and thereafter it was dispensed with". 8. While going through the document, exhibit MW-1/2 issued by the Managing director, which has been reproduced above, though it is only a noting on the file of the respondent, but we cannot overlook the same, as it was produced by the management and got exhibited before the learned Tribunal. 8. While going through the document, exhibit MW-1/2 issued by the Managing director, which has been reproduced above, though it is only a noting on the file of the respondent, but we cannot overlook the same, as it was produced by the management and got exhibited before the learned Tribunal. In the said noting, the Managing Director has directed the District Manager, Confed, District Office, faridabad, to appoint three chowkidars for hasanpur and five labourers at Faridabad on contract basis till the stocks are disposed of or for a period of three months. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that since the contract period had come to an end and the stocks have been disposed of, there was no need to keep the workmen in service. 10. Now going through Para 3 of the written statement, as has been reproduced above, it has been clearly stated that the wheat/stocks were lifted and the entire management of stocking and its custody was handed over to Haryana Warehousing corporation, it was due to this change in policy that the services of the workmen were no more required. There is no mention in the entire written statement that the services of the workmen were terminated because of a contract between the management and the workmen. If this was so, there would have been some sort of agreement or some sort of order telling the workman that he is only on a contract basis and for a certain period. 11. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the authority cited in Simla Devi V/s. Presiding Officer and Others 1997-I-LLJ-788 (Pandh) wherein it has been held that without producing any evidence by the respondent that the petitioner had been engaged for doing a specified job, the service of the workman cannot be terminated. The relevant portion of the judgment aforesaid is reproduced as under: "the Court also made reference to judgments of the various High Courts in shailendra Nath Shukia V/s. Vice-Chancellor allahabad University and others 1987 All cj 736; Dalip Hanumantrao Shirke V/s. Zila parishad, Yavatmal 1990-I-LLJ-445 (Bom); K. Rajendran V/s. Director Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. , new Delhi 1995-III-LLJ (Suppl) 240 (Mad); jayabharat Printers and Publishers Private ltd. V/s. Labour Court, Kozhikode and others; 1994-II-LLJ-373 (Ker); Balbir singh V/s. Kurukshetra Central Co-operative bank Ltd.1990-I-LLJ-443 (Pandh); Raj bahadur V/s. General Manager, Food specialities Ltd.1991 (1) PLR 631, haryana State Federation of Consumers co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd. V/s. Presiding Officer, Labour Court 1991 1 sct 697; (sic) Kurukshetra Central co-operative Bank Ltd. V/s. State of Haryana 1993 (1) LLN 307; J. J. Shrimali V/s. District development Officer, Zila Panchayat 1990-I-LLJ-451 (Guj); Chakradhar tripathy V/s. State of Orissa 1992 LIC 1813, ram Prasad V/s. State of Rajasthan 1993 (1)LLN 601 and M. Venugopal V/s. Divisional manager, Life Insurance Corporation of india 1994-I-LLJ-597 (SC) and held as under: from the above, it is clear that termination of service of a workman who has worked under an employer for 240 days in a period of twelve months preceding the date of termination of service will ordinarily be declared as void if it is found that the employer has violated the provisions of sections 25-F (a) and 25-F (b ). If the employer resists the claim of the workman and invokes Sec.2 (oo) (bb), burden lies on the employer to show that though the employee has worked for 240 days in twelve months prior to termination of his service, such termination of service cannot be treated as retrenchment because it is in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment or on account of non-renewal of the contract of employment. It has also to be shown by the employer that the workman had been employed for a specified work and the job which was being performed by the employee is no more required. Only a bona fide exercise of right by an employer to terminate the service m terms of the contract of employment or for non-renewal of the contract will be covered by the Clause (bb ). If the Court finds that the exercise of rights by the employer is not bona fide or the employer has adopted the methodology of fixed term employment as a conduct or mechanism to frustrate the rights of the workman, the termination of the service will not be covered by the exception contained in Clause (bb ). Instead the action of the employer will have to be treated as an act of unfair labour practice, as specified in the Fifth Schedule of the Act. Instead the action of the employer will have to be treated as an act of unfair labour practice, as specified in the Fifth Schedule of the Act. The various judgments rendered by the different High Courts and the Supreme court clearly bring out the principle that only a bona fide exercise of the powers by employer in cases where the work is of specified nature or where the temporary employee is replaced by a regular employee the action of the employer will be upheld. In all other cases, the termination of service will be treated as retrenchment unless they are covered by the exceptions set out hereinabove. applying the law laid down in the above-mentioned decision, we hold that the impugned award passed by the Labour court suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of it because the Labour Court has failed to apply itself to the background in which the services of the petitioner were terminated on the pretext of non-renewal of contract of service/non-extension of the term of employment. " The law laid down in the authority cited above is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. We, therefore, find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12 Learned counsel for the respondents, in support of this contention, has placed reliance upon the authorities cited in State of rajasthan and Others V/s. Rameshwar Lal gahlot AIR 1996 SC 1001 : 1996 (1) SCC 595 : 1996-I-LLJ-888 and Faridabad Complex administration Faridabad V/s. Industrial tribunal, Haryana, Faridabad, and another 1997 (4) LLN 350. The authorities cited above do not give any help to the respondents because the dispute in those cases was that the workmen were appointed for a fixed period and the respondents in the instant case did not produce any evidence to show that the workmen had been engaged on contract basis. In the present case, if there had been a contract between the parties, then the relevance of these authorities could have definitely been taken into consideration. 13. For the reasons recorded above both these petitions bearing Nos.9471 and 9472 of 1999 are allowed and the award, dated August 26, 1998 (Annexure P3) passed by the Labour court, Faridabad, is set aside. Petitioners in both these writ petitions are reinstated in service with all consequential benefits and with full back-wages from the date of demand notice.