ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI) 1. We have heard Mr. Avnesh V. Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. G.M. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. By way of the present Intra-Court Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant – original respondent has challenged the judgment and order dated 29.7.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.17629 of 2003 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein – original petitioner and set aside the award dated 20.7.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Kalol in Reference (LCK) No.131 of 1989. 3. The facts are not in dispute that the appellant herein original respondent was engaged by the respondent herein – original petitioner on contractual basis to work as a Clerk for the period from 7.10.1987 to 30.9.1988. On completion of the said period, the original petitioner did not continue the services of original respondent and hence, the original respondent approached the Labour Court wherein the Labour Court by the award dated 20.7.2001 allowed the reference and directed reinstatement of the original respondent with all consequential benefits. 3.1. The said award of the Labour Court was challenged by the original petitioner before the learned Single Judge which was quashed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was not engaged on contract basis for one time, but he was engaged for three times for different period. He further submitted that juniors to the appellant were kept in service and the services of the appellant was discontinued. In support of this submission, he relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Dilbagh Singh, 2006 AIR SCW 5435 wherein it is held that where persons junior to the respondent still working, then the senior person could not be terminated. 5. On the other hand, Mr. G.M. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. On the other hand, Mr. G.M. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. He has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation v. Salimbhai Umarbhai Mansuri, (2013) 14 SCC 456 wherein it has been held that person engaged on contractual basis and his termination after end of contract does not amount to retrenchment and hence, provisions of Section 25 F and 25 G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would not be applicable. 6. We are of the considered opinion that the appellant was engaged purely on contractual basis. On completion of the contract period, the services of the appellant came to be terminated. Hence, once the contract period is over and the appellant was disengaged, it will not give any right to the appellant to ask for said employment on permanent basis. The Labour Court while allowing the reference of the appellant and directing reinstatement with all consequential benefits had completely lost sight of the fact that in matters of contractual appointment, the employment is governed by the terms of contract and not under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In view of specific provisions contained in Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein – original petitioner and set aside the award of the Labour Court. 7. With regard to the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the case in hand deals with the contractual appointment. 8. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. 9. In the result, the present Letters Patent Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.