JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. The Management of Council for Advancement of Peoples 'Action & Rural Technology (in short, "CAPART"), by the present petition, has challenged the award dated 29.03,2005 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal at Guwahati in Reference Case No. 26(C)/2002, whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal answered the reference made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, "the Act") in favour of the workman and directed the Management to reengage him as LDC-cum-Typist with effect from the date of his termination and to pay all the financial benefit to the workman till the date of his reappointment. 2. Sri Kalyan Kr. Das, (in short, "the workman") was engaged by the Management of CAPART as Lower Division Clerk (LDQ-cum-Typist on 04.03.1996 initially on daily wage basis and, thereafter, pursuant to an advertisement dated 25.06.1996 issued by the Management and on the basis of the selection made, appointed as LDC-cum-Typist on 01.08.1996, for a period of three months at the consolidated pay of Rs.1500/- per month. On expiry of the initial period of appointment he was reappointed from time to time some times for a period of three months and sometimes for six months at a time by giving few days break in between, on the following conditions: (i) The contract appointment is for six months but liable to be terminated at any time before the expiry of six months time without assigning any reason thereof. (ii) He will be responsible in assisting all administrative related works. (iii) He will entitled to avail casual leave for four days during the tenure of six months. (iv) He will not be entitled for any benefits/allowances as admissible to the regular employees of "CAPART". The last order of appointment of the workman was issued by the Management on 06.01.2001 and after expiry of the six months period of appointment the workman was informed that his services is no longer required with effect from 06.07.2001. The initial monthly consolidated pay of Rs.1500/- was subsequently revised to Rs.3200/- per month. 3. The workman being aggrieved by the action of the Management in relieving him from service raised an industrial dispute and approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) and accordingly a conciliation proceeding was initiated. The initial monthly consolidated pay of Rs.1500/- was subsequently revised to Rs.3200/- per month. 3. The workman being aggrieved by the action of the Management in relieving him from service raised an industrial dispute and approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) and accordingly a conciliation proceeding was initiated. No settlement having been able to arrived at in such conciliation proceeding, the conciliation officer sent the report to the Central Government and accordingly a reference was made by the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour vide notification dated 08.11.2002 to the learned Tribunal on the following issue: Whether the action of the management of Council for Advancement of People's Action & Rural Technology, Regional Committee (NE Zone), Guwahati-28 in terminating the services of Sri Kalyan Kumar Das, Ex-LDC-cum-Typist w.e.f. 06.07.2001 after serving for more than 5 years in the Council for Advancement of People's Action & Rural Technology, Regional Committee (NE Zone), Guwahati is legal and justified? If not, to what relief Sh. Kalyan Kumar Das is entitled to? 4. On receipt of the order of reference, the learned Tribunal registered Reference Case No. 26(C)/2002 and issued notices to both the Management as well as the workman. The written statements as well as the additional written statements were filed by the Management and also by the workman putting forward their respective contentions before the learned Tribunal. The workman in support of his case has examined himself as witness. The Management examined two witnesses in support of its action of reliving the workman from service on expiry of the contractual period. All the witnesses were duly cross-examined by the respective parties. During the course of examination of the witnesses a number of documents were also exhibited by both the parties. The learned Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidences on record as well as upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties answered the reference in favour of the workman directing the Management to re-engage the workman as LDC-cum-Typist within 45 days from the date of the award with effect from the date of termination and to pay all financial benefits till the date of re-appointment. Hence, the present petition. 5. I have heard Mr. U. Bhuyan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Soren, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the workman. 6. Mr. Hence, the present petition. 5. I have heard Mr. U. Bhuyan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Soren, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the workman. 6. Mr. Bhuyan, the learned Counsel for the Management referring to the pleadings of the parties as reflected in the written statements filed before the learned Tribunal as well as the advertisement and also the orders of appointment issued appointing the workman as LDC-cum-Typist has submitted that the workman having been engaged on contractual basis in terms of the contract of appointment as reflected in the orders of appointment, the Management is within its right to release the workman from service on expiry of the period of contract and the workman having accepted the contract of employment cannot question the action of the Management in that regard. It has been submitted by Mr. Bhuyan that it is evident from the stand taken by the Management in the written statement as well as the evidence adduced before the learned Tribunal that the workman was engaged initially for three months with effect from 01.08.1996 and, thereafter, relived on 31.10.1996, and the workman was, thereafter, re-engaged from time to time sometimes for six months or sometimes for three months with break in between and the last engagement was on 08.01.2001 for six months, on expiration of which the workman was relived from duty in terms of the contract of employment as embodied in the order of appointment and as there is no further requirement of LDC-cum-Typist at the Guwahati Office of the Management, Mr. Bhuyan referring the Constitutional Bench decision of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC has submitted that when the engagement of the workman was on contractual basis and the workman having accepted the terms of the contract cannot subsequently turn around and claim his engagement after expiry of the period of contract. Referring to the award passed by the learned Tribunal Mr. v. Umadevi and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC has submitted that when the engagement of the workman was on contractual basis and the workman having accepted the terms of the contract cannot subsequently turn around and claim his engagement after expiry of the period of contract. Referring to the award passed by the learned Tribunal Mr. Bhuyan has submitted that it is evident from the said award that the learned Tribunal has answered the reference in favour of the workman on the ground that the advertisement initially issued was totally silent that the selected candidate would be appointed for three months only though it is apparent from the advertisement dated 25.06.1996 that it has specifically be mentioned that the engagement would be for a period of three months. 7. Mr. Bhuyan, the learned Counsel for the Management referring to the provision of Section 25F of the Act has further submitted that the engagement of the workman being admittedly on contractual basis, the Management before retrenching the workman is not required to fulfill the conditions laid down therein, in view of "retrenchment" as defined in Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. It has further been submitted that it is evident from Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act that the termination of services of workman as a result of non-renewal of contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry shall not be construed as retrenchment and, therefore, the conditions stipulated in Section 25F of the Act. is not required to be fulfilled by the Management before retrenching the workman concerned in the present case, even though he may have completed 240 days of continuous service within the meaning of Section 25B of the Act. Referring to the pleading of the Management in the written statements as well as the evidence adduced, it has further been submitted by Mr. Bhuyan that the action of the Management in releasing the workman from service on expiry of the period of contract does not amount to unfair labour practice within the meaning of the Act, in view of the evidence available on record that the Guwahati Office of the Management cannot engage any person as LDC-cum-Typist for a period of more than six months at a time, there being no regular and permanent post of LDC-cum-Typist and the services of such a person is not required. 8. 8. Referring to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 477/2002 Jagadish Chakraborty v. Union of India and Ors. as well as a Single Bench decision of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 558/2002 Amar Baishya v. Union of India and Ors., it has been submitted by Mr. Bhuyan that the question of termination of the contractual appointment by the Management of CAPART and their right to continue in the job came to be decided in those cases and this Court by taking into account the conditions stipulated in the contractual appointment as well as relying on the decision in Umadevi(2006) 4 SCC has answered the question in favour of the Management by holding that the Management has the right to release the workman from service on expiry of the period of contract and the workman has no right to continue after such expiration of the period of contract. Mr. Bhuyan referring to the pleadings in the written statement has submitted that as the Management does not required the services of LDC-cum-Typist any more and there being no sanction for regular and permanent post of LDC-cum-Typist in the Regional Office at Guwahati and such contention in the written statement having not been denied by the workman in the written statement and also the additional written statement filed, the learned Tribunal ought not to have directed the Management to reappoint the workman in service. Mr. Bhuyan, therefore, submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal being contrary to law is liable to be set aside. 9. Mr. Soren, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the workman, on the other hand, supporting the award passed by the learned Tribunal has submitted that the workman being appointed as LDC-cum-Typist, it cannot be said that the services of such LDC-cum-Typist is not required at all in the Office, such services having always been required. According to Mr. Soren, the workman has been engaged as LDC-cum-Typist with effect from 01.08.1996 on the basis of the selection made pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Management and his entry into the service is not by the backdoor and he having completed more than 240 days in service, he cannot be retrenched from service without following the provision of Section 25-F of the Act. It has further been submitted by Mr. It has further been submitted by Mr. Soren that the concerned workman has been serving from 01.08.1996 to 06.07.2001, i.e. almost for five years continuously with intermittent artificial break though in such break the workman in fact discharged his duties as LDC-cum-Typist. According to Mr. Soren, in the present day context where there is dearth of employment, the workman has no option but to accept the terms and conditions though he was engaged after due selection and the nature of works performed by the workman is continuous. According to Mr. Soren, the Management has adopted the unfair labour practice in putting such conditions in the appointment only with a view to deprive the workman from the benefit of Section 25F of the Act and to bring the same within the scope of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. Referring to the depositions of the witnesses examined by the Management, it has further been submitted by Mr. Soren that though the Management has taken the plea in the written statement that as there is no further requirement of the post of LDC-cum-Typist the workman's services was not further extended or he has not been re-appointed after expiry of the last term of engagement on 06.07.2001, no evidence is led by the Management though two witnesses were examined by it before the learned Tribunal. Neither of the two witnesses examined by the Management has ever stated that there is no requirement for the post of LDC-cum-Typist. 10. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC, it has been, it has been submitted by Mr. Soren that the ratio laid down in the said decision has no application in the present case as the workman was engaged after due selection pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Management of CAPART and he has been allowed to continue with artificial breaks in between for almost five years and as in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC the question was whether contractual employee has the right to get regularization in service, which is not the case in hand. According to Mr. According to Mr. Soren, as the Management did not comply with the statutory requirement of Section 25F of the Act he is to be reinstated in service in the same terms and conditions in which he was engaged earlier and there was no reference made relating to the question of regularization of the workman in service. Mr. Soren in support of his contention has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh 2005 (2) SC-SLR 199; in Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Ltd. 2007(1) SCC 533 and Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mamni 2006 (2) LLJ 744 SC; of the Bombay High Court in Dilip Hanumantrao Shirke and Ors. v. Zilla Parishad. Yavatmal and Ors. 1990 (1) LLJ 445 ; and of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bhikku Ram v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak 1996 (3) LLJ (Supp.) 1126. 11. Section 25F of the Act requires the employer to give the workman concerned one month notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or to pay in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of notice, before a workman employed in any industry, who has been in continuous service for not less than one year, is retrenched by the employer. It also requires the employer to pay the workman, at the time of retrenchment, compensation equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of continuous services or any part thereof in excess of six months, apart from serving the notice an appropriate Government in the prescribed manner by notification in the official gazette. Section 25B of the Act defines continuous service. "Retrenchment" has been defined under Section 2(oo) of the Act, which, for better appreciation is reproduced below: 2.(oo) '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. Section 25B of the Act defines continuous service. "Retrenchment" has been defined under Section 2(oo) of the Act, which, for better appreciation is reproduced below: 2.(oo) '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. 12. Section 25F of the Act provides that in case a workman is terminated from service, who has been continuous in service within the meaning of Section 25B of the Act and comes within the meaning of "retrenchment", without complying the conditions precedent as laid down in Section 25 of the Act, such termination is invalid being contrary to the provisions of the Act. However, in the event the workman concern was engaged on contractual basis and he has been terminated from service because of non-renewable of contract of employment on its expiry or terminated from service under a stipulation contained in such contract or retrenchment of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation or termination of service of the workman on the ground of continued ill health or in case of voluntary retirement of the workman, the conditions precedent for retrenchment of the workman as stipulated in Section 25F of the Act are not required to be fulfilled. Since the Clauses - (a), (b), (bb) and (c) are the exceptions to Section 2(oo), as it takes out a class of workman from the definition of "retrenchment", the same have to be strictly construed as it takes away certain rights of the workman conferred by Section 25-F of the Act. Since the Clauses - (a), (b), (bb) and (c) are the exceptions to Section 2(oo), as it takes out a class of workman from the definition of "retrenchment", the same have to be strictly construed as it takes away certain rights of the workman conferred by Section 25-F of the Act. Therefore, if the workman proves that he has been engaged on contractual basis only with a view to deprive him from the benefit of Section 25-F of the Act and to defeat the object of the Act and to bring it within the provision of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act, the said exception would not be attracted. In that case the Management has to comply with Section 25-F of the Act before retrenchment of such workman. Such a view has also been taken by the Bombay High Court in Dilip Hanumantrao Shirke (supra) as well as by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Bhikku Ram (supra). 13. The Apex Court in Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd.( supra) relying on the its various earlier decisions including the decision in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC and upon taking into consideration the facts involved in that case relating to the engagement of the workman concerned therein, who has been engaged from February, 1991 to February, 1992 with intermittent break of 2/3 days has held that since the services of the workman were used to be terminated on expiry of 89 days on regular basis and the workman concerned was used to be appointed after a gap of one or two days upon completion of each terms, such an action on the part of the Management is not bonafide and is taken with a view to defeat the object of the Act and hence the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act is held to be not applicable even though he was terminated in terms of the contract of service. The Apex Court in the said judgment, however, keeping in view the facts involved in that case directed the Management to pay the compensation instead of reinstatement in service with backwages. 14. The Apex Court in the said judgment, however, keeping in view the facts involved in that case directed the Management to pay the compensation instead of reinstatement in service with backwages. 14. In Gangadhar Pillai (supra) the Apex Court observed that only because an employee has been engaged on casual basis or temporarily or intermittently for a number of years, the same would by itself not imply that the unfair labour practices have been resorted to by the Management and such question being essentially a question of fact has to be gone into in each case. It has further been observed that if on the basis of the evidences available on record it transpires that there is requirement to employ the employees on temporary basis keeping in view the nature of project undertaken by the Management, it cannot be said that such temporary employment has been made to defeat the object of the Act and to deprive the workman from the benefit of the work. In such case it would come within the meaning of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. A constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC has held if it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. 15. In the instant case, the workman was initially appointed by following due process of selection pursuant to the advertisement issued. Moreover, the workman has not prayed for regularization in services or permanent absorption in services. The question, which was referred to for the decision of the learned Tribunal was - whether the termination of services of the workman concerned is legal and justified. Moreover, the workman has not prayed for regularization in services or permanent absorption in services. The question, which was referred to for the decision of the learned Tribunal was - whether the termination of services of the workman concerned is legal and justified. The Tribunal was, therefore, called upon to decide, with reference to such question, whether such termination comes within the meaning of Section 25F of the Act, if so, whether the requirement of such provisions have been complied with by the Management before terminating the services of the workman. The Division Bench judgments of this Court in Jagadish Chakraborty (supra) as well as in Amar Baishya (supra) are not applicable in the present case as in those cases the question as to whether the termination of the employees concerned is legal and valid in view of the non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act did not arise for consideration. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the question, which requires consideration in the present case is whether the action on the part of the Management in engaging the workman after selection, for 3/6 months at a time with intermittent break is bonafide and such course of action has been adopted by the Management only with a view to deprive the workman from the benefit of the Act and just to bring within the definition of Section 2(oo)(bb), so that the requirement of Section 25F of the Act need not be complied with. 17. The Management in the written statement filed has admitted the issuance of the advertisement dated 25.06,1996 and also the selection of the workman concerned in such selection process initiated. Such advertisement though was for engagement for three months and the workman on being selected was initially engaged for three months with effect from 01.08.1996, he was thereafter, engaged sometimes for six months and sometimes for three months with intermittent break, maximum of which was for 10(ten) days. The workman was last engaged on 08.01.2001 for a period of six months and on expiry of such period, i.e. on 06.07.2001, the Management did not extend/reappoint the workman on the ground that his period of engagement has expired. The workman was last engaged on 08.01.2001 for a period of six months and on expiry of such period, i.e. on 06.07.2001, the Management did not extend/reappoint the workman on the ground that his period of engagement has expired. Admittedly there is a condition in the contract of employment that such appointment is for the limited period and liable to be terminated at anytime before expiry of the period without issuing any reason, details of which has already been quoted above. The period of engagement of the workman concerned as reflected in the written statement filed by the Management, is as under: Sl. No. Joined Tenure Relieved Non functioning period 1. 01.08.96 3 months 31.10.96 - 2. 04.11.96 6 months 02.05.97 3 days 3. 12.05.97 6 months 11.11.97 9 days 4. 17.11.97 6 months 15.05.98 5 days 5. 21.05.98 3/2 months 07.09.98 5 days 6. 18.09.98 3 months 17.12.98 10 days 7. 18.12.98 3 months 17.03.99 0 days 8. 22.03.99 3 months 21.06.99 3 days 9. 25.06.99 6 months 24.12.99 3 days 10. 28.12.99 6 months 27.06.00 3 days 11. 03.07.00 6 months 21.01.01 5 days 12. 08.01.01 6 months 06.07.01 5 days 18. The Management in the written statement has taken the specific stand relating to the number of permanent posts sanctioned in the Regional Office at Guwahati by the Head Office on the basis of the requirement of staff, which are, One post of Director; one post of Deputy Director/Assistant Directory two posts of Research Assistants, one post of Programmer, one post of Accountant, one post of Stenographer and one post of Peon. It has further been contended that there is no regular post of Office Assistant in the Regional Office at Guwahati but there is an option of hiring required staff on contractual basis through service agencies for a period of not more than six months subject to receipt of approval for such engagement. In the written statement it has also been specifically pleaded by the Management that there is no further requirement of the post of Office Assistant and as such the workman's service was not further extended/appointed after expiry of the last term of appointment on 06.07.2001 and presently the regular employees are able to look after the office works. The further stand of the Management in the written statement is that the Regional Office has no power to create any post on regular basis. The further stand of the Management in the written statement is that the Regional Office has no power to create any post on regular basis. In the written statement filed a stand has also been taken that the Regional Office has the power to engage person other than against the sanctioned post purely on contractual basis and as contractual appointment of the Office Assistant was required at the relevant point of time, the workman concerned was engaged on contractual basis, initially after issuing an advertisement and undergoing a process of selection. The workman neither in the written statement nor in the additional written statement filed denied such statement taken by the Management. The workman, however, in the additional written statement filed enclosed certain communications issued by the Regional Office of CAPART relating to the requirement of additional staff, which were issued in the year 1996-97. Those communications do not conclusively prove that there is requirement of permanent staff as Office Assistant in the Regional Office at CAPART at Guwahati. The workman was engaged on contractual basis initially in the year 1996 and continued up to 2001 with intermittent break because of such requirement for the Office Assistant at the relevant point of time. It is also not in dispute that there is no permanent or regular post of Office Assistant in the Regional Office of CAPART at Guwahati. The Management witness has categorically stated about the strength of the sanctioned staff of the Regional Office at Guwahati, which does not include the post of Office Assistant. The workman has not led any evidence to demonstrate that he was engaged on contractual basis with a view to deprive him from the benefit of Section 25F of the Act and to defeat the object of the said Act and only with a view to bring his employment within the meaning of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. He has also in his deposition not stated that going by the nature of work of the Office Assistant he performed, the Management requires an Office Assistant to be engaged on regular basis. 19. He has also in his deposition not stated that going by the nature of work of the Office Assistant he performed, the Management requires an Office Assistant to be engaged on regular basis. 19. From the aforesaid factual situation of the instant case, it cannot, therefore, be said that the Management of CAPART had engaged the workman on contractual basis just to defeat the object of the Act and to deprive the been fit of Section 25-F of the Act and to bring it within the meaning of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the said Act. Even the advertisement dated 25.06.1996 issued by the Management reveals that the post is purely temporary and for a limited period of time, i.e. for three months and on consolidated pay, though the learned Tribunal has observed that there was no period of engagement stipulated in the said advertisement. The learned Tribunal solely on the ground, that the workman concerned was temporarily appointed as LDC-cum-Typist for the period from 1996-2001 has answered the reference in favour of the workman by holding that the retrenchment of the workman is illegal having not complied with the requirement of Section 25F of the Act, without going into the terms of engagement as well as to the question as to whether the workman was engaged on contractual basis with a view to deprive him from the benefit of Section25F of the Act and also the object of the Act and only to bring such employment within the meaning of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. No cost. Petition allowed.