JUDGMENT : S. Manikumar, J. Aggrieved by the order, dated 18.07.2014, passed in W.P. (MD) No. 641 of 2012, directing the appellant, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Madurai Region, to reinstate the workman in service, as a fresh entrant, by providing the last drawn wages, prospectively, the appellant is before this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. 3. According to the 2nd respondent/workman, he was appointed as a Watchman in the year 1986 in the appellant Transport Corporation. He was working, without any break, for about 16 years. He was paid a salary of Rs. 2,100/- per month. On 18.04.2002, he was orally terminated from service. Challenging the same, the 2nd respondent/workman raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.9 of 2004 before the Labour Court, Madurai. 4. Before the Labour Court, the 2nd respondent/workman had contended that he had completed 240 days in a year, but, without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, he was terminated from service and therefore it was illegal. However, the said contention was rebutted by the appellant stating that the 2nd respondent/workman was appointed only on contract basis in 1997, and that the contract was renewed from time to time. Finally, the contract expired on 15.04.2002. Since the employment was temporary one, he was not entitled for the benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was further contended that after expiry of the contract, the employment of the second respondent came to an end, automatically, as per Section 2(oo)(bb) of Industrial Disputes Act. 5. On the above pleadings and after analysing the evidence adduced, the Labour Court, by Award dated 24.01.2011, dismissed the industrial dispute, holding that the termination of the second respondent/workman would not amount to retrenchment in view of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent/workman filed the aforesaid writ petition. Placing reliance on the decision of a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Manager (P and A), Oil and National Gas Corporation Ltd., Chennai v. G. Radhakrishnan, reported in 2005 (2) L.L.N. 881, a learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, as follows: "8. I have gone through the said case very carefully. In that case also, the workman therein was employed by way of a Contract. He worked as Contract Employee for several years. I have gone through the said case very carefully. In that case also, the workman therein was employed by way of a Contract. He worked as Contract Employee for several years. He was terminated from service. He raised an Industrial Dispute challenging the same. In that case also, the contention of the Management was that since he was only a contract employee, as per Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the same will not amount to retrenchment and therefore, the termination cannot be found fault with. This contention was negatived by the Division Bench for more than one reason. According to the Division Bench, if the requirement of the services of an individual is for a fixed period, that too for a shorter period, certainly the Management can employ the individual on contract basis, and thereafter terminate the contract or refuse to renew the contract. In such a case, the termination would not amount to retrenchment. But when the services of an individual is required perennially for a long time, as a matter of fact, the individual is so employed for such a long period by renewing the contract, periodically, according to the Division Bench, this will amount to unfair labour practise. The Division Bench has further held that termination of such employee though employed as a contract labour, would amount to retrenchment and the same shall not be saved by Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Division Bench has further held that employer cannot be allowed to abuse or misuse Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, so as to deprive the poor workman from claiming his benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Division Bench has further held that the Industrial Disputes Act, being a benevolent Act, should be construed so as to ensure that the fruits of the Act reach the poor workman." 6. After extracting paragraph 22 of the judgment, the learned Single Judge further held that termination if allowed to be perpetrated in the instant case, would only amount to allowing the appellant Management to abuse Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. After extracting paragraph 22 of the judgment, the learned Single Judge further held that termination if allowed to be perpetrated in the instant case, would only amount to allowing the appellant Management to abuse Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In view of the settled position of law, as held by the Hon'ble Division Bench and since the 2nd respondent/workman had been working for 16 years, continuously and terminated without following Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the learned Single Judge held that the 2nd respondent/workman is entitled for reinstatement. 7. As rightly held, the second respondent/workman is entitled for the benefit under Section 25-F of the Act and therefore the retrenchment of the workman without following the provisions of Section 25-F is liable to be set aside. The writ court was conscious of the fact, in holding that the second respondent/workman is not entitled for any back wages. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the well considered and detailed order of the writ court does not call for any interference. 8. In view of the above, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.