G. C BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) THE Hindustan Aeronautics Limited has preferred this intra-Court appeal. The learned single Judge, by the impugned judgment, has dismissed the writ petition filed by the management questioning the award of the labour Court, directing reinstatement of the 1st respondent with 50% back wages from the date of claim statement. ( 2 ) THE foundational facts are not in dispute. By communication dated June 9, 1986 (Annexure-A), the appellant-management offered appointment to the 1st respondent on the post of Plastic and Fibre Worker-B in its aircraft Division. Clauses (b) and (c) of the said letter are material which read as under:" (B) Your continuation/confirmation of appointment will be subject to satisfactory verification of your credentials/ testimonials, etc. (c) Your appointment is temporary for one year. Your service will terminate automatically on expiry of the period of appointment referred to above unless the period of employment is extended in writing on such terms and conditions as may be laid down by the company. During the period of employment, if your services are found unsatisfactory or not required by the company, it can terminate your services without giving notice. Similarly, if you wish to leave the services of the company, you may do so without giving notice. " ( 3 ) ON receiving the acceptance of the above offer from the 1st respondent, he was given appointment with effect from June 11, 1986. Before the expiry of the period of one year for which he was given initial appointment, by another letter dated May 27, 1987 (Annexure-B), the tenure of his appointment was extended by another two years, that is, upto March 31, 1989. The relevant part of this letter reads as under:"2. As per the above letter, the tenure of your appointment comes to close on June 10, 1987. 3. However, we are pleased to extend your appointment temporarily for a further period of two years i. e. , upto March 31, 1989 on the same terms and conditions contained in the offer letter under reference. 4. In case this offer extending your appointment is acceptable to you, kindly communicate your acceptance by attesting your signature on the duplicate copy of this letter. 4. In case this offer extending your appointment is acceptable to you, kindly communicate your acceptance by attesting your signature on the duplicate copy of this letter. " ( 4 ) ON expiry of the above period of two years, by letter dated March 31, 1989 (Annexure-C), the 1st respondent was communicated that his service stands ceased consequent upon expiry of the tenure. On termination of his service as above, the 1st respondent filed an application under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Karnataka Amendment) (in short, referred to as the 'act'), questioning his termination. The labour Court took the view that termination of the petitioner amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the Act, and since the mandatory requirements of Section 25-F were not complied with, therefore, his termination per se was bad. Accordingly, the labour Court directed for reinstatement of the 1st respondent with 50% back wages. ( 5 ) THE above award was questioned by the management through a writ petition filed in this court. But the learned single Judge, despite having noticed the terms on which the 1st respondent was appointed, took the view that 'in the appointment letter, there was no mention that the appointment was on a temporary basis', and accordingly upheld the view taken by the labour Court. ( 6 ) WE find it difficult to agree with the learned single Judge for the simple reason that the letters of appointment as extracted above unambiguously state that the appointment of the 1st respondent was for one year at the first instance which was extended by a further period of two years upto March 31, 1989. Admittedly, on expiry of the contract period, the respondent could not have remained in service. It is a matter of record that the respondent had accepted the service under the management with full knowledge that his appointment was for a fixed period. Admittedly, on expiry of the contract period, the respondent could not have remained in service. It is a matter of record that the respondent had accepted the service under the management with full knowledge that his appointment was for a fixed period. ( 7 ) SECTION 2 (oo) of the Act reads as under:"'retrenchment', means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include (a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or (bb) termination of the service 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; or (c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health. "sub-clause (bb) was inserted in Section 2 (oo) by Central Act No. 49 of 1984 which came into effect from August 18, 1984, and is thus fully applicable to the facts of the present case. ( 8 ) RECENTLY, the Supreme Court in the case of Harmohinder Singh v. Kharga Canteen, ambala Cantt. , 2001 (5) SCC 540 : 2001-II-LLJ-488 has, after referring to Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act, held that:"contracts of service for a fixed term are, therefore, excluded. This Court in Uptron india Limited v Shammi Bhan, AIR 1998 SC 1681 : 1998 (6) SCC 538 : 1998-I-LLJ-1165 has also held that the principles of natural justice are not applicable where the termination takes place on the expiry of the contract. The decision of a learned single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High court in Balbir Singh v. Kurukshetra central Co-operative Bank Limited, 1990-I-LLJ- 443 (Pandh) to the extent that it holds to the contrary, is erroneous. " ( 9 ) IN the present case, as already found by us, termination of the respondent was as a result of the expiry of contract of service and as such, it was not "retrenchment" within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the Act. Therefore, Section 25-F had no application to the facts at hand. " ( 9 ) IN the present case, as already found by us, termination of the respondent was as a result of the expiry of contract of service and as such, it was not "retrenchment" within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the Act. Therefore, Section 25-F had no application to the facts at hand. In our considered opinion, the Labour Court had failed to apply itself to the amendment made to section 2 (oo) of the Act which led to the passing of a wrong award. ( 10 ) AT the time of admission of the present appeal, this Court had directed for reinstatement of the workman subject to the final decision of the appeal. Since we have allowed the appeal and set aside the award in the terms as aforesaid, the interim order gets merged with this final order. We would like to observe that if the post on which the respondent was appointed is still in existence, and is otherwise vacant, then while making the appointment thereto, the case of the respondent will be favourably considered subject to fulfilment of other requisite conditions. ( 11 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, with due respect to the learned single Judge, we find it difficult to agree with the view taken by him. Accordingly, the award of the Labour Court is quashed and the impugned judgment is set aside. We further hold that the termination of the respondent was in accordance with law. Parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .