Factual background in a nutshell is as under The case of the appellant was that he was appointed as Junior Typist on N.M.R. basis by the respondent with effect from 12.7.1982.
Thereafter, he was allowed to companytinue without any break till 11.8.1989.
The High Court accepted the stand of the respondent Corporation that the appointment of the writ petitioner appellant herein was on N.M.R. basis for a fixed period of time on the basis of payment at different rates.
Later he was appointed on ad hoc basis in the usual scale of pay of Rs.255 5 285 EB 7 306 12 390/ with effect from 23.7.1985.
Thereafter without any rhyme or reason, he was again kept in N.M.R. on payment of Rs.10/ per day for a period of 90 days from 1.12.1985 to 28.2.1986.
The respondents case before the Labour Court was that the appellant was working on N.M.R. basis as a Typist with effect from 12.7.1982.
The last order of appointment on N.M.R. basis was issued to him on 28.4.1989.
He companytinued in the said post for more than one year.
The companytractual period of engagement ended on 3.5.1989 and there was numberrenewal thereafter.
Thereafter he was allowed to companytinue from 29.6.1986 to 25.9.1986 and further from 27.9.1986 to 24.12.1986.
All of a sudden another order was issued appointing him for 44 days with effect from 1.10.1983.
He was appointed for a specific period on daily wage basis.
Thereafter numberfurther extension was given.
On companysideration of the representation for further engagement and having regard to the requirement, he was engaged again and again on daily wage basis for specific period.
Thereafter, he was allowed to companytinue for about 8 months.
Thereafter, his service automatically ceased and it is number a case of retrenchment.
On its expiry on 15.11.1983 another appointment order was issued on 5.12.1983 for a fixed period giving effect from 16.11.1983.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court setting aside the award of Labour Court, Bhubaneswar dated 29.10.1997 passed in I.D. Case No.90 of 1994 which directed the appellant Corporation to reinstate the present appellant with full back wages.
Alleging that refusal of work beyond 11.8.1989 amounting to retrenchment, he raised dispute giving rise to the above reference.
