MAHESH RAM Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned award of the Labour Court, Gorakhpur, dated 1-6- 1993 Annexure 11 to the writ petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) THE Labour Court has recorded its finding that the petitioner was appointed against a Project and since that Project had come to an end, his service automatically came to an end. Hence, it was not a case of retrenchment. Evidently the petitioner was doing the work of planting during the Project and since that Project had come to an end, he cannot be retained in service as it was not a permanent job. THEse are finding of fact and I cannot interfere with the same in writ jurisdiction. When a Project came to an end, it is obviously a case of closure and not of retrenchmentand hence Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act does not have to be complied with. However, the petitioner shall be paid closure compensa tion under Section 25- FFFof the Industrial Dispute Act by the respondent No. 3 with in three months of production of a certified copy of this order.