JUDGMENT : (M. K. THAKKER, J.) (1) This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by the learned labour Court at Godhra dated 07.10.2024 in Reference (T) No.116 of 2024, whereby the Reference filed by the present petitioner came to be rejected. (2) It is the case of the present petitioner that the petitioner was appointed by respondent No.1 on 11.01.2004 for a period of one year under the terms that the appointment would be on a contract basis, with a salary of Rs.1,000/- per month. It was further stipulated that continuation after the end of the tenure would be subject to mutual agreement and that the appointment would be governed by the rules and regulations laid down by the Indian Red Cross Society. (2.1) It is further the case of the petitioner that he continued in service after completing the initial one-year term upto 31.03.2010. On 01.04.2010, a fresh appointment letter was issued, specifying a contractual period of 11 months. Similar appointment letters were issued on 01.04.2011, 01.04.2012, and 01.04.2013. It is the case of the petitioner that by an application dated 05.03.2014, he and other co-employees requested respondent No.1 to increase camp allowances and submitted a separate application for the grant of GPF benefits, along with a request for the renewal and extension of their service contracts. However, by an order dated 21.03.2014, the respondent suspended the petitioner’s service and issued a show cause notice, alleging misconduct. The notice stated that multiple complaints had been received against the petitioner and that, despite being previously instructed to remain available on call for emergency services, he failed to respond to calls and did not meet the expected work standards. (2.2) The petitioner has filed the reply on 24.03.2014 denying all the contentions made in the suspension order. It is the case of the petitioner that with a view to make the scapegoat, the application was obtained from co-employees about misbehavior with the other lady co-employee and issuing threats for filing the complaint under the Atrocities Act. One more application has been received by the respondent from the other co-employee stating that the petitioner was pressurizing the co-employees to go on the strike. One more application has been received by the respondent from the other co-employee stating that the petitioner was pressurizing the co-employees to go on the strike. It is the case of the petitioner that without conducting the departmental inquiry, directly the report was submitted on 27.03.2015 and has put an end to the service contract of the petitioner on completion of the period of the contract i.e. on 31.03.2014. Challenging the above termination of the service contract, the Reference was filed before the learned labour Court, Godhra which registered as Reference (T) No.116 of 2014 which came to be rejected by the learned labour Court and the same is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. (3) Heard the learned advocate Mr.Jay Koshti for the petitioner. (3.1) Learned advocate Mr.Koshti submits that though the petitioner has worked continuously as a contractual employee from 2004 to 2014, the service contract was put an end to in the year 2014 and the petitioner was disengaged by the respondent. Learned advocate Mr.Koshti submits that the termination is based on alleged misconduct, which was not proved by initiating the departmental inquiry, however, directly the report was submitted by the inquiry officer in breach of principle of natural justice. (3.2) Learned advocate Mr.Koshti submits that on obtaining false and frivolous complaint from the other workman, the conclusion was made by the inquiry officer with regard to proving of charge that too also without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner. Learned advocate Mr.Koshti submits that the learned labour Court has committed an error in concluding that termination of service is not covered within the ambit of sections 2(oo) and 2(bb) of the I.D.Act and therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set aside and the relief of reinstatement with all consequential benefit is required to be granted. (4) Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and on perusing the documentary evidence, it emerges from the record that the appointment of the present petitioner was made as a laboratory attendant-cum-sweeper in the blood bank run by the respondent on 11.01.2004. On referring the appointment order, it reveals that appointment was made on contract basis for the period of one year from 11.01.2004 to 31.12.2004. It is clarified in the appointment order that the continuation after end of year, tenure it will be mutual contract. On referring the appointment order, it reveals that appointment was made on contract basis for the period of one year from 11.01.2004 to 31.12.2004. It is clarified in the appointment order that the continuation after end of year, tenure it will be mutual contract. It further reveals from the renewal of the contract dated 01.04.2010 wherein it was specified in the condition No.1 that the period of contract is only for 11 years and his engagement was made on fixed pay of Rs.3,000/-. The similar was the conditions in the renewal of appointment order dated 01.04.2011, 01.04.2012 and 01.04.2013. (4.1) It appears that 31.03.2014 on the day when the service contract was completed, the respondent has informed to the petitioner that his service contract is not required to be renewed in view of the inquiry report and therefore, his services were disengaged from 31.03.2014 by an order dated 28.03.2014. (4.2) It reveals from the documentary evidence, which is part of the petition that various complaints have been filed by the co-employee and though previously the petitioner was informed to improve the behavior, however, the same remained as it is therefore, the services were disengaged by the respondent. It reveals from the communication, which is part of the petition at page 55, that on earlier occasion the show cause notice was issued and it was informed to the petitioner that why his salary for the period of one day is not deducted and thereafter, it was informed that if in the future, similar misconduct would be committed then the contract would not be extended further. It was informed by the Chairman to the present petitioner on 22.03.2014 that the petitioner instigating the other co-employee to go on strike and as the service of the respondent fall under the public utility service, the same would be considered as grievous misconduct and his service contract would not be renewed if the improvement would not be made. (4.3) It is also revealed from the communication dated 21.03.2014 that the petitioner is misbehaving with the Superior Officer, his work is not satisfactory, he is irregular in remaining present, he is not responding on the phone and therefore, he is suspended from the service. (4.3) It is also revealed from the communication dated 21.03.2014 that the petitioner is misbehaving with the Superior Officer, his work is not satisfactory, he is irregular in remaining present, he is not responding on the phone and therefore, he is suspended from the service. It also emerges from the record that co- employee had made written communication to the chairman that on the instigation of the present petitioner, they went on the strike and it was requested that similar misconduct would not be committed in future and they may be permitted to rejoin the service. (4.4) The inquiry report, which was submitted to the Chairman dated 27.03.2014, reveals that on 08.06.2009 the notice was issued to the present petitioner and though he was warned no improvement was made by the present petitioner in his work. On 17.09.2009 the other notice was issued asking to the petitioner that why his one day salary is not deducted. On 17.09.2009 on giving the assurance of not committing the similar misconduct in future the opportunity was given to the present petitioner. Again on 09.02.2010 the other notice was issued to the petitioner, similar were the notice dated 16.08.2010 and 06.10.2011, 03.02.2012 and 03.12.2012. (4.5)It is recommended by the inquiry officer that as the contract is completing on 31.03.2014 therefore, same may not be extended considering the misconduct committed by the present petitioner. It is contended by the petitioner that opportunity of hearing was not given by initiating the departmental inquiry. It appears that the notice was issued by the respondent and the reply was also submitted by the present petitioner. It is contended by the petitioner that opportunity of hearing was not given by initiating the departmental inquiry. It appears that the notice was issued by the respondent and the reply was also submitted by the present petitioner. (4.6) At this stage section 2(oo) and section 2(bb)are required to be referred, which are reproduced hereinbelow: “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; 2(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] ” These sections provide that the termination of the service of the workman would be made as a result of non-renewal of the contract of employment on expiry or of such contract being terminated under stipulation in that behalf contained therein does not come under the definition of the retrenchment. (5) Contract service for a fixed term are excluded from the purview of section 25(F) of the I.D.Act and the contract was not extended on completion of 11 months’ period, it had no application of the provision of Act because definition in sections 2(oo) (bb) expressly excluded “termination of the service of a workman as a result a non-renewal of contract of employment between the employer and workmen on its expiry or on such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contain therein”. (6) This Court did not find any infirmity in the impugned award, hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. (7) Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. The impugned award passed by the learned labour Court at Godhra dated 07.10.2024 in Reference (T) No.116 of 2024 is hereby confirmed.