JUDGMENT 1. 2. K.S. Rathore, J. - This writ petition is directed against the award dated 16.12.1996 passed by the Labour Court, Jaipur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Government of India sponsored a particular project to the University Grants Commission for getting the project completed through the University concerned. This project was assigned to the University of Rajasthan, Department of Zoology, through the Registrar of the University. The Registrar requested Dr. C.M. Mahajan to accept the project and complete it within the specific period and, as per need appointed respondent No. 2 Shri Ved Prakash Srivastava as Field Cum Laboratory Assistant on 27.11.1979 for helping him in the research work. 3. The petitioner referred the appointment order dated 27.11.1979 of the respondent No. 2 Shri Ved Prakash Srivastava wherein it was specified that the appointment is purely on adhoc basis on consolidated. pay of Rs. 350/- per month and the appointment will be governed by the University of Rajasthan Rules in force and can be terminated at 24 hours notice. The respondent No. 2 was well aware with regard to the Scheme and the Scheme was not for a particular period. This fact reveals from Annexure-6 i.e. the application. of the respondent dated 2.2.1982 to the I lead of the Department of Zoology, University of Rajasthan for seeking employment on the post of Technical Assistant and it is also made clear that the MAB Project in which the respondent was working at the moment will be completed on 28.2.1982. As such, the respondent was available for the job immediately or latest by 1.3.1982. This application of the respondent itself shows that the MAB project was for a fixed period. The respondent submitted his joining report vide letter dated 1.3.1982 wherein it was specifically mentioned that "I further understand that the appointment is-for a period of three months or until a regular appointment is made whichever is earlier." 4. Vide letter dated 23.4.1982, the services of the respondent were further extended for a period of six months with the stipulation that the respondent's services can be terminated by giving one month notice on both sides prior to the period of six months. The services of the respondent were terminated vide order dated 24.1.1984 and the termination order was passed on the ground that the project came to an end. 5. The services of the respondent were terminated vide order dated 24.1.1984 and the termination order was passed on the ground that the project came to an end. 5. The petitioner referred Section 2(oo)(bb) and after referring this provision the petitioner submitted that it is not the case of retrenchment. Thus, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable. 6. In support of his submissions he placed reliance on the judgments reported in (1994) 2 SCC 323 ; RLW 2002(2) SC 511; (2006) 1 SCC 253 ; (1996) 1 SCC 595 and (2006) 1 SCC 121 . 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondent No. 2 is continuously working in the Zoology Department of Rajasthan State for more than 240 days in one calendar year. Thus, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable in the instant case and the Labour Court has rightly observed that it is a case of retrenchment and ordered to reinstate the services of the respondent with all consequential benefits. 8. The respondent in the application under Section 17-b submitted that the respondent is not in the employment and he is simply earning his livelihood by way of tuition. Therefore, the application under Section 17-b should be allowed outrightly with 50% back wages and other than tuition he has no source of earning and he is facing serious financial crisis. Thus, as per the provision of 17-b, the respondent should be paid salary last drawn by the respondent till the disposal of the writ petition. 9. Heard learned-counsel for the respective parties and perused the provision of Industrial Disputes Act and the judgments referred by the respective parties. 10. Section 2(oo)(bb) speaks about the "retrenchment" which 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 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 on that behalf contained therein. 11. 11. Upon careful perusal of the judgments referred by the petitioner and applying the ratio decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the light of Section 2(oo)(bb), a bare perusal of the appointment order specifically stipulates that the respondent is appointed purely on adhoc basis for consolidated pay till the expiry of the period of Project and prior to that the services of the respondents can be terminated at 24 hours notice. The appointment was given to the respondent for a fixed term of three months and same was extended from time to time. 12. Therefore, I am fully convinced with the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) is applicable to the instant case as per the ratio decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the Labour Court has failed to appreciate this aspect and has not given any finding to this effect as to how the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) is not applicable and the Labour-Court also seriously erred to consider that it is a case of retrenchment and applied provision of Section 25-F, in my considered view, and as per the settled proposition of law, the Labour Court has not correctly appreciated the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. 13. Consequently, this writ petition stands allowed and the award dated 16.12.1996 passed by the Labour Court is hereby quashed and set aside.And with regard to application under Section 17-B is concerned, as per Section 17-B "Where in any case, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman, during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court, full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit by such workman had been filed to that effect in such Court." 14. I have perused the affidavit in support of 17-B wherein it is no where stated, that the respondent No. 2 is not employed in any establishment during this period and at the time of argument, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he earns his livelihood through tuition only. 15. As specific averment has not been mentioned in 17-B, I am not satisfied with the reason stated in 17-B that he is not employed during that period. As such the application stands rejected.S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2285/1998 16. This writ petition is preferred by the respondent for implementation of the award. Since the (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4295/1998) filed by the University of Rajasthan itself has been allowed and the award dated 16.12.1996 passed by the Labour Court is quashed and set aside hence, the question of implementation of the award does not arise.Consequently, this writ petition stands rejected.Writ Petition No. 2285 of 1998 allowed and Writ Petition No. 4295 of 1998 rejected. *******