ORDER : K.S. Jhaveri, J. This petition is directed against the award dated 15th March 2001, passed by the labour Court, Ahmedabad, in Reference (LCA) No.595 of 1996 whereby the Labour Court has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with continuity of service along with 50% back wages. The respondent was appointed as Helper on ad hoc basis for a fixed period from 22.1.1990 to 31.1.1990 on the NAAQM Project in order to meet the exigency of work. After the expiry of the said period the services of the respondent were terminated. Thereafter the respondent was appointed for a period from 2.2.1990 to 30.4.1990. Similar types of appointment orders were issued from time to time as per the requirement of work. The last of such appointment was for a period from 2.3.1993 to 31.3.1993 and on expiry of the said period his services were terminated. After a period of three years the respondent raised a dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, which was registered as Reference (LCA) No.595 of 1996. The Labour Court, after hearing the parties, passed the aforesaid award, which is challenged in this petition. 2. Mr. D.G. Chauhan, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not an "industry" as defined under section 2(j) of the Act. According to him the respondent has never completed 240 days service in a year and there was no violation of provisions of section 25-F of the Act. He submitted that the appointment order specifically stipulated the period of appointment and after the said period the appointment came to an end as it was only for a fixed period on a project. He submitted that there is no termination of service or retrenchment and therefore the Labour Court has committed an error in passing the impugned award. He submitted that in the case at hand, the termination of the respondent is as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment and there is no question of application of section 25-F on the basis of which the termination of the service of the respondent can be held to be invalid. 3. Mr. He submitted that in the case at hand, the termination of the respondent is as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment and there is no question of application of section 25-F on the basis of which the termination of the service of the respondent can be held to be invalid. 3. Mr. Vaishnav, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent supported the judgement of the Labour Court and submitted that the Labour Court has considered all the aspects of the matter and has rightly come to the conclusion that the services of the respondent were terminated in violation of the provisions of the Act. He submitted that the respondent was wrongly denied the wages and artificial breaks were given to him. He, therefore, submitted that this Court may not interfere with the award of the Labour Court. 4. As a result of hearing and perusal of the record certain aspects are undisputed. The respondent was appointed on a particular project. The appointments were given for specific period. His appointment was not against a regular or permanent post and it was on ad hoc basis for the said project. The appointment letter which was on record also shows that it was an adhoc appointment and his appointment was for a project. Therefore it is clear that the alleged termination of the respondent is as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment and therefore provisions of section 25-F will not be attracted. I am therefore of the view that the Labour Court has erred in terming it as "retrenchment" and issuing directions to reinstate the respondent or to renew the contract. 5. In the case of Vadodara Municipal Corporation v. Gajendra R. Dhumal, reported in 1996 I LLJ 206 it is held that once the workmans appointment ceased to be a fixed term appointment, subsequent issue of an order giving a fixed term appointment with retrospective effect will not attract the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. 6. In view of the above, I am of the view that the Labour Court has committed an error in passing the award in question and the award is required to be quashed and set aside. In the premises aforesaid, the impugned award is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.