JUDGMENT R. K. PATRA, J. — The award of the Labour Court, Bhuba¬neswar dated 27.10.1997 passed in I.D. Case No. 90 of 1994 di¬recting the petitioner to reinstate Opposite party No. 3 in this former post with full back wages is the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition. 2. The following dispute was referred to the Labour Court for decision : “ Whether the action of the Divisional Manager, Orissa State Cashew Development Corporation Limited, Dhenkanal in refusing the employment to Sri K.G. Samal, Junior Typist-cum-Steno with effect from 11th August, 1988 is legal and/or justified, if not to what relief he is entitled ? The case of the workman-Opposite party No.2 was that he was appointed as Junior Typist on N.M.R. basis by the petitioner with effect from 12.7.1982. He continued in the said post for more than one year. All on a sudden another order was issued appoint¬ing him for 44 days with effect from 1.10.1983. On its expiry on 15.11.1983 another appointment order was issued on 5.12.1983 giving effect from 16.11.1983. Thereafter, he was allowed to continue for about 8 months. Later he was appointed on ad hoc basis in the usual scale of pay of Rs. 285/-390 with effect from 23.7.1985. Thereafter without any rhyme or reason, he was again kept on N.M.R. on payment of Rs. 10/- per day for a period of 90 days from 1.12.1985 to 28.2.1986. Thereafter he was allowed to continue from 29.6.1986 to 25.9.1986 and further from 27.9.1986 to 24.12.1986. Thereafter, he was allowed to continue without any break till 11.8.1989. Alleging that there was refusal of work beyond 11.8.1989 amounting to retrenchment, he raised dispute giving rise to the above reference. The petitioner’s case before the Labour Court was that Opposite party No.2 was working on N.M.R. basis as a Typist with effect from 12.7.1982. He was appointed for a specific period on daily wage basis. On consideration of the representation for further engagement and having regard to the requirement, he was engaged again and again on daily wage basis for specific period. The last order of appointment on N.M.R. basis was issued to him on 28.4.1989. Thereafter no further extension was given. There¬fore, his service automatically ceased and it is not a case of retrenchment. 3. The last order of appointment on N.M.R. basis was issued to him on 28.4.1989. Thereafter no further extension was given. There¬fore, his service automatically ceased and it is not a case of retrenchment. 3. The Labour Court on perusal of the evidence on record held that Opposite party No.2 served continuously for many years covering the requisite period of continuous service in a calender year. Although there is no evidence that the post of Typist was a permanent one, he was engaged from time to time and at the time of termination as the provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had not been applied with, termination of his service is illegal and unjustified. On the basis of the said finding, the labour Court directed Opposite party No.2 to be reinstated in his former post. 4. Shri Patnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was appointed as N.M.R. Typist keeping in view the workload of Corporation whose job was to raise cashew which is a seasonal crop. Opposite party No.2 was accordingly appointed for a specific period of 44 days and the last such office order was dated 28.9.1989 appointing him on N.M.R. basis for a period of 44 days with effect from 31.3.1989 to 3.5.1989. Thereafter no appointment order was issued to him. According to him, therefore, this being termination of service on expiry of the contract period within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) (a) (bb) is not retrenchment and, therefore, compliance of provisions of Section 25-F does not arise. Shri Mishra on the other hand submitted that Opposite party No.2 had been working on N.M.R. basis for a period of 7 years and his discontinuity beyond 3.5.1989 is nothing but mala fide exer¬cise of power and, therefore, the award of the labour Court should not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on Exts. 4, 4/a and 5. 5. From the appointment order which are Ext.2 series, it may be seen that Opp. Party No.2 was being appointed on N.M.R. basis for 44 days from time to time on the basis of payment of Rs. 10/-/15/-25/- per day except in one order he was appointed for 44 days in the scale of pay of Rs.255-390/-. 5. From the appointment order which are Ext.2 series, it may be seen that Opp. Party No.2 was being appointed on N.M.R. basis for 44 days from time to time on the basis of payment of Rs. 10/-/15/-25/- per day except in one order he was appointed for 44 days in the scale of pay of Rs.255-390/-. In the Case of these documents, there is substance in the submission of Shri Patnaik that the appointments were on contract basis for speci¬fied period and the last contract period 44 days was from 21.3.1989 to 3.5.1989. Therefore, after termination of the con¬tract, there being no renewal, the case of Opp. Party No.2 cannot be held to be retrenched. Let us now look at Exts.4, 4/a and 5. Ext.4 and Ext.4/a are two letters dated 29.4.1988 and 22.9.1986 respectively of the Divisional Manager, Dhenkanal and plantation Manager forwarding the representations of Opposite party No.2 to the Managing Director of the petitioner Corporation for regularisation of service. Ext.5 is a copy of the resolution of the 48th meeting of the Board of Directors by which the daily wage of Opposite party No.2 was raised from Rs.15/- to Rs.25/- per day. These three documents no way come to the rescue of Opp. Party No.2 Therefore, on facts and circumstances, we are inclined to hold that the award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of Opp. Party No.2 in service cannot be sustained in law. On the basis of material, no reasonable person would come to such conclusion. For the reasons aforesaid, we hereby quash the impugned award dated 27.10.1997 at Annexure-5. The writ petition is al¬lowed. Before parting with the case, we may note that this order does not stand on the way of the petitioner to consider the case of Opp. Party No.2 for fresh appointment. If he makes any representation to the petitioner, the same may be considered notwithstanding that the award made in his favour has now been aside. M. PAPANNA, J. I agree. Petition allowed.