JUDGMENT : Ravi R. Tripathi, J. The petitioner municipality has brought under challenge award dated 2.9.2011 passed by labour Court Rajkot in reference (LCR) No. 187 of 2002 whereby the labour Court has directed the petitioner municipality to reinstate the respondent workman on his original post. The labour Court has however declined to award any backwages. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said direction to reinstate the respondent. Hence present petition. 2. The facts emerging from the record are that the respondent workman raised industrial dispute on the ground that though he was in continuous service of the petitioner municipality since May 2000, his service was illegally and arbitrarily terminated with effect from 1.3.2002 without following any procedure and without complying any requirement. The said dispute was referred for adjudication to the labour Court. During the proceedings before the labour Court the respondent workman filed his statement of claim claiming and alleging that he was engaged by the petitioner municipality as "Mistry" (technical assistant) on and from 19.5.2000 and his job included work of preparing tender form and preparing notices to invite bids and to supervise, at site, as to whether the execution of work is being carried out as per specification in the tender, or not. He also alleged that he was working regularly and diligently and his tenure was spotless however merely because he raised demands for his rights, his service was terminated by oral intimation w.e.f. 1st March, 2002. On such allegations he claimed that his service was terminated illegally and in violation of provision of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") as per the provision under Sections 25F, 25G and 25H inasmuch as while he was terminated, his junior were continued in service and subsequently other employees were also recruited. 3. The respondent workman claimed reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. 4. The petitioner employer resisted the reference by filing written statement, claiming, inter alia that the respondent was engaged on contract basis and that he was working as contractor and was not workman of the municipality and was never engaged as a workman and that therefore there was no requirement or obligation to follow any procedure prescribed by the Act and/or to comply any conditions and requirements under the Act. It was also claimed that the contract with the respondent was not renewed after 28.2.2002 and that therefore the allegation about breach of Section 25F or 25G or 25H are not sustainable and the relief prayed for by the respondent should not be granted. 5. Both the parties placed oral and documentary evidence on record and the learned labour Court, upon considering the documents placed on record as well as the oral evidence came to the conclusion that it was established that the respondent was engaged by and he was in the employment of the petitioner and that he had worked w.e.f. 19.5.2000 until 28.2.2002 and that therefore his employment with the petitioner was continuous under Section 25B of the Act. The labour Court came to the conclusion, upon examination of the documents (at exhibit 19 to exhibit 37) that the respondent was not engaged for any particular project and/or that he was not attached to any specific project only. The learned labour Court, however did not believe the allegation about breach of Section 25G. Similarly, the labour Court also did not accept the allegation that petitioner had committed breach of Section 25H, because the persons who were engaged for performing the duties which the respondent was performing before his termination were the employees of municipality who were already employed in cotroi department but were declared surplus after abolition of octroi. 6. Mr. Mankad, learned advocate has appeared for the petitioner municipality and vehemently assailed the award. He submitted that the respondent was engaged on contract basis and that therefore he cannot be considered workman of the petitioner and there was no obligation to comply the provisions under the Act. He also submitted that since the respondent was engaged on contract basis provisions under Section 25f would not be applicable and the respondent cannot be said to be workman of the petitioner municipality. He submitted that the direction to reinstate the respondent is wholly unjustified and deserves to be set aside. Any other contentions are not raised. 7. So far as the conclusion by the labour Court with reference to the alleged breach of 25G and Section 25H are concerned, there is no error or infirmity in the said conclusion. Besides this, the said findings are not under challenge hence it is not necessary to examine, the said conclusions. 8. Any other contentions are not raised. 7. So far as the conclusion by the labour Court with reference to the alleged breach of 25G and Section 25H are concerned, there is no error or infirmity in the said conclusion. Besides this, the said findings are not under challenge hence it is not necessary to examine, the said conclusions. 8. The issue which remains for consideration is the conclusion about the labor Court in connection with the respondent allegation about breach of Section 25F. 9. So far as the said issue and labour Court's conclusion are concerned it is necessary to note, at the outset that there is no dispute, and even before the labour Court there was no disputes as regards (a) respondent's date of joining with the petitioner municipality (19.5.2000); and (b) the date when the petitioner terminated the service of respondent (1.3.2002) and (c) that the respondent had worked continuously between the said two terminal points i.e. during the span of about 2 years from 19.5.2000 to 28.2.2002; and (d) there was also no dispute about the fact that during the said period and particularly in preceding 12 months the respondent had worked for 240 days (Actually, the said aspect and dispute was not raised by the petitioner before the learned labour Court and has not been raised before this Court as well). 10. When the fact that the respondent was engaged by the petitioner and when his date of joining and/or the date on which he was terminated are not in dispute but when the defence is raised on the ground that the respondent was engaged on contract basis and that therefore the action of termination cannot be invalidated on ground of violation of Section 25F, then it translates into the position that the petitioner seeks to take defence on the ground of the exclusion clause provided by virtue of sub-clause (bb) of Section 2(oo). In present case the petitioner has claimed that the respondent was contractor and therefore cannot be said to be workman. 11. However, the relevant documents demolishes the petitioner's defence. Interestingly the said documents are the orders issued by the petitioner and any dispute with regard to the said documents is not raised on any count by the petitioner. Differently put the documents and their contents are admitted. 12. Mr. 11. However, the relevant documents demolishes the petitioner's defence. Interestingly the said documents are the orders issued by the petitioner and any dispute with regard to the said documents is not raised on any count by the petitioner. Differently put the documents and their contents are admitted. 12. Mr. Mankad, learned Counsel for the petitioner made available, for the purpose of perusal by the Court, the said documents (i.e. the orders under which the respondent was engaged by the petitioner) during the hearing. This Court has examined the said documents and it is noticed that the first order was issued on 18.5.2000 and it was under the said office order that the respondent was engaged by the petitioner w.e.f. 19.5.2000. On perusal of the said order it emerges that under the title "job description" it is mentioned that the respondent shall have to perform clerical and all other duties in construction Section which may be assigned to him and he shall also have to perform all duties of an assistant as may be assigned. While it is true that in the said office order it is mentioned that the respondent is engaged on contract basis the words like "appointment", "employment", "salary" are also used in the order and the use of the phrase "service"/"employment" or "appointment" etc cannot be overlooked. The document must be read as a whole and while construing the entire document in its totality it also emerges that the work for which the respondent was engaged is integral and regular / permanent part of the works of the municipality for which the municipality has been engaging regular employees and both i.e. the post and the work are sanctioned for the establishment and exist on the sanctioned set up. These aspects become evident from the other documents placed on record below exhibit 19 to 41 and also form the vital fact that though the said office order dated 18.5.2000 mentioned that the respondent was engaged only for period of 3 months ultimately and at the end and in reality the tenure of the respondent continued for almost two years. These aspects become evident from the other documents placed on record below exhibit 19 to 41 and also form the vital fact that though the said office order dated 18.5.2000 mentioned that the respondent was engaged only for period of 3 months ultimately and at the end and in reality the tenure of the respondent continued for almost two years. Thus, the submission that the respondent was independent "contractor" and not a workman as per section 2(s) of the Act cannot be accepted and the submission that he was engaged only for limited contract period also cannot be sustained in light of the fact that the respondent was actually continued uninterruptedly for about 2 years. 13. It emerges from the record that under order dated 1.9.2000 the respondent was ordered to be continued until 31.10.2000 and thereafter another order was passed continuing the respondent for further period. One of the orders on record is dated 31.5.2001 under which the respondent is ordered to be continued until 13.11.2001. Besides this, there is another vital document viz. office order dated 2.3.2001 which seems to have been issued for specifying and describing the area of work of various employees. The said document recites that the office order is issued for facilitating function of administration by specifying the duties, functions and area of work of "various employees performing duties in the office of Jasdan Municipality" and more important aspect of the matter is that in the said document name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 5 in the said list. If the respondent was merely independent contractor and/or was engaged only for limited contract period as specified in the order dated 18.5.1990, as claimed by the petitioner then his name would not appear in the said list. The said document clarifies, beyond any doubt, that for all practical purposes the respondent was workman and even the municipality had considered respondent as its "employee/workman", for outside contractor there does not arise any need for issuing such office order and/or name of outside contractors are not included in the office order prescribing areas of work, duties and functions of the employees. 14. The above mentioned aspects and particularly the effect emerging from the above mentioned office order "exhibit 22" dated 2.3.2001 become all the more clear from another office order (exhibit 25). 14. The above mentioned aspects and particularly the effect emerging from the above mentioned office order "exhibit 22" dated 2.3.2001 become all the more clear from another office order (exhibit 25). In the said office order dated 19.12.2000 (exhibit 25) it is clarified that the municipality engaged the respondent on its setup and as its employee though on daily wage basis, w.e.f. 30.10.2000. 15. Thus, even if the respondent's employment with the petitioner w.e.f. 19.5.2000 i.e under the first order is not taken into account then also, his employment shall have to be taken into account at least from 30.10.2000 and considering from even that date the respondent had put in service of more than 12 months with the petitioner. Thus, upon expiry of period of 3 months the office order dated 18.5.2000 lost its effect and for the period of service put in by the respondent after completion of 3 months starting from 19.5.2000 the said order dated 18.5.2000 cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner municipality (to contend that he was merely an independent contractor and / or was engaged only for limited contract period mentioned in the order dated 18.5.2000) more particularly in light of exhibit 22 dated 2.3.2001 and exhibit 25 dated 19.12.2000. 16. At exhibit 36 the petitioner placed on record the order dated 31.12.1956 under which one post of "mistry" was sanctioned on regular setup on the establishment of petitioner municipality. It is, as mentioned above, not in dispute that the petitioner itself claimed, so as to oppose the contention raised by the respondent on ground of Section 25G and Section 25H, that the respondent was the only person working on the post of mistry. Thus, it also gets established by petitioner's documents that the respondent was working on vacant sanctioned post on the establishment of the petitioner. 17. It is noticed from the record that there are certain other documents on record which, inter alia, establish the respondent's educational qualifications. 18. It also comes out from the record that vide letter dated 23.2.2002, which is on record at exhibit 38 a union named Saurashtra Employees Union had raised demand on behalf of the respondent and claimed that he should be given all benefits available to the employees of the municipality and immediately thereafter the respondent's service came to be terminated (w.e.f. 1.3.2002) on 28.3.2000 and that too by oral intimation. 19. 19. In light of the above referred documents it emerges that the respondent herein had worked on the post of "mistry" with the petitioner municipality for period more than 12 months and there is no dispute about the length of the respondent's service and / or about the fact that the respondent worked continuously during the entire tenure and it is also not in dispute that he had worked for more than 240 days in preceding 12 months. 20. In face of such facts respondent was terminated without following any procedure. So as to recapitulate it is necessary to recall that:- (a) the respondent was engaged on sanctioned vacant post, (b) the post was sanctioned and permanent post on the establishment of the petitioner since 1956, (c) he worked on the sanctioned post for about 2 years, (d) it was not in dispute that for the entire period he worked continuously and uninterruptedly, (e) it was not even disputed that he had worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months, (f) by office order his job description was also prescribed, (g) he was not terminated by way of disciplinary measure after departmental proceedings. In face of such facts the procedure prescribed under Section 25F was not followed and his service was unceremoniously terminated. 21. On this count it is necessary to note that the respondent was, admittedly, not terminated on ground of any alleged misconduct and his termination was not effected as a disciplinary measure after holding any department inquiry for any alleged misconduct. 22. The above referred documents demolishes the defence of the petitioner municipality that the respondent was an outsider and independent contractor and was not engaged on the petitioner's setup. Thus, the exclusion clause under Section 2(oo) does not in any manner help the petitioner. Consequently the respondent's termination would amount to retrenchment in light of the decision of the apex Court in case of State Bank of India vs. N. Sundermani ( 1976 (1) LLJ 478 ). 23. At this stage, reference may be made to the decision of the apex Court in case of U.P. State Textile Corporation ltd. vs. Suresh Kumar ( AIR 2011 SC 3296 ) on which the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance. 23. At this stage, reference may be made to the decision of the apex Court in case of U.P. State Textile Corporation ltd. vs. Suresh Kumar ( AIR 2011 SC 3296 ) on which the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance. In the said case the employee was terminated on ground of habitual absenteeism before the expiry of the period for which he was engaged and in that background the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that since the respondent (in the said case) was engaged for 3 years reinstatement could not have been granted beyond the period for which he was engaged. The said decision is based on the fact of the case, particularly the fact that the establishment of the employer was defunct and proceedings before BIFR were pending and the conduct of the concerned person of habitually remaining absent was the reason for termination and the termination was in that case, not challenged on ground of breach of mandatory and statutory condition and requirement prescribed by law e.g. Section 25F of the act and that therefore the said decision would not help the petitioner in present case, more particularly when after issuance of exhibit 25 dated 19.12.2000, the respondent's service was not on any contract basis for limited and specified period and though undisputedly his service period was of more than 12 months during which he had worked for more than 240 days, the obligation to comply with the mandatory requirement under Section 25F had come into operation but the said requirement was not complied with. 24. In this background of facts, it is not possible to hold that the conclusion of the labor Court that the petitioner's action of terminating the respondent is vitiated on account of breach of Section 25F cannot be faulted and cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. 25. The award does not suffer from any infirmity and learned Counsel of the petitioner has failed to make out any case to successfully assail the findings and conclusions of the labour Court. The petition therefore fails and deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. Petition rejected.