SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated March 15, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, in I. D. Case No. 40 of 2000. ( 2 ) THE respondent No. 1 was employed as waiter for a period of six months with effect from the date of his joining by an Order No. 669 dated October 3, 1997. The contract of employment was renewed from time to time. Lastly, the contract was renewed, by an Order No. 732 dated October 29,1999, up to October 31, 1999. Since the contract of employment was not renewed, disputes and differences arose between the employer and the workman concerned and ultimately, a reference was made to the Labour Court. The Labour Court was requested to adjudicate as to whether the action of the management in terminating the service of the respondent No. 1 was legal and justified and what relief the workman concerned was entitled to. ( 3 ) THE learned Presiding Officer noted in the award that the workman was appointed on contract basis. The Presiding Officer held that the termination of service of the workman was neither legal nor justified and he was entitled to reinstatement in service. In passing the award, the learned Presiding Officer held that the concept of automatic termination in terms of the standing order was no longer good; the service of the workman was terminated without complying with the provisions of section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Presiding Officer, further, found that the workman completed more than 240 (two hundred forty) days of continuous service during the period of 12 (twelve) calendar months. ( 4 ) THE moot question is whether it is a case of retrenchment of the workman in violation of the condition precedent to retrenchment of workman or it is the case of non-renewal of contract of employment on its expiry, which was entered into between the employer and the workman for a specific period. ( 4 ) THE moot question is whether it is a case of retrenchment of the workman in violation of the condition precedent to retrenchment of workman or it is the case of non-renewal of contract of employment on its expiry, which was entered into between the employer and the workman for a specific period. ( 5 ) THE learned Presiding Officer drew inspiration from the definition of continuous service as defined under section 25b of the said Act and held that as the workman was in continuous service and worked under the employer for 240 (two hundred forty) days during the period of 12 (twelve) calendar months, his service could not be terminated without following the condition precedent to retrenchment of workman. ( 6 ) THE expression "retrenchment" has been defined under section 2 (00) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said definition was introduced by Act 42 of 1953 with effect from October 24, 1953. By Act 49 of 1984 clause (bb) was inserted in the definition with effect from August 18, 1984. The expression "retrenchment", as defined in the Act, means that the termination of the service of a workman by the employer for any reason whatsoever. If the termination is by way of punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, it will not amount to retrenchment. There are two other exceptions, that is: (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. By Act 49 of 1984 two further exceptions are introduced in the definition by inserting clause (bb)with effect from August 18, 1984. One of such exceptions is termination of service of a workman on account of continued ill-health. The other is termination of 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 such contract is terminated under stipulation in that behalf contained therein. ( 7 ) ALL retrenchments are termination of services, but all terminations are not retrenchments. The burden of proof to establish that the retrenchment of service of a workman is retrenchment within the meaning of Industrial Disputes act, 1947 is on the person putting forward the claim. The workman concerned claims that he has been retrenched. ( 7 ) ALL retrenchments are termination of services, but all terminations are not retrenchments. The burden of proof to establish that the retrenchment of service of a workman is retrenchment within the meaning of Industrial Disputes act, 1947 is on the person putting forward the claim. The workman concerned claims that he has been retrenched. Therefore, the workman must prove that he was retrenched from the service. ( 8 ) THE learned Presiding Officer did not consider as to whether the workman concerned was employed for a specific period and for a specific purpose and his service was terminated as a result of non-renewal of contract of employment on its expiry or under a stipulation in that behalf contained in the contract of employment. Therefore, the learned Presiding Officer in reaching his conclusion proceeded on a wrong interpretation of the statutory provisions. ( 9 ) THE Award is. therefore, set aside and the matter is sent back to the learned Presiding Officer for reconsideration to find out if in this case termination of service of the workman concerned comes within the exceptions enumerated under section 2 (00) of the said Act. ( 10 ) THE writ petition is, thus, allowed with the aforesaid directions. Liberty is granted to the parties to adduce further evidence in support of their respective cases before the Tribunal. ( 11 ) I make no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed with directions.