WORKMEN OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Vs. Management, M. C. D. N. N. Goswamy ( 1 ) [petitioner joined MCD in 11961 as a pipe fitter in the slum wing, he aleging that it was against a regular vacancy while MCD contending that it was on purely temporally basis. In 1962, he was placed on muster roll of daily wages @ Rs. 6. 0 per day and worked as such till 1. 10 67 when bis service was arbitrarily terminated. After conciliation failed, Govt. referred to the Additional Ind. Tribunal : "whether non-employment of Ziauddin since 1. 10 67 was wrongly ?"] After detailing above, judgment proceeds :- ( 2 ) PETITIONER examined him self as AW5. He deposed that he joined the Municipal Corporation in 1961 and was removed in 1967 when he was getting Rs. 6. 00 per day. He further stated that in 1962 he was working as a permanent employee for five months but thereafter was put on the Muster Roll He stated that in 1962 he worked for 358 days, in 1963 for 341 days, in 1964 for 343 days, in 1965 for 359 days. in 1966 for 304 days in 1967 for 292 days. He further staged that the JJ, Scheme in which he was working was transferred to D. D. A. in 1968. Since his removal from service he has been doing some manual labour and is not employed anywhere. He further stated that he was also entitled to weekly off after working for six days which was not allowed to him. No evidence, in rebuttal, was led by the Management. It appears that during the course of arguments, before the Tribunal, it was stated that the department in which the petitioner was working stood transferred to DDA in 1968 and as such no relief could be granted to petitioner. The Tribunal accepted the statement of the petitioner regarding the number of days for which he worked in each of the years till 1967. The Tribunal also noticed that after the services of the petitioner were terminated, the Management bad engaged another person in his place. It was further found that the Management had failed to examine any evidence in rebuttal and the management had not prepared any seniority list which it was Under obligation to do in view of its own resolution dated 5. 1. 67. It was further found that the Management had failed to examine any evidence in rebuttal and the management had not prepared any seniority list which it was Under obligation to do in view of its own resolution dated 5. 1. 67. However, surprisingly the claim of the petitioner was negatived only with the following observations :- "management s contention is that since the J. J. Scheme has been transferred to D. D. A. the MCD has nothing to do with the employees of that scheme. The workman Zia-ud-din has himself admitted in cross-examination that all the employees of J. J. Scheme have been transferred to the D. D. A. Since the D. D. A. is an independent body, the MCD can have no say in the matter of employment of that body. I find myself inagreement with the above contention and hold that the claim of the workman against the MCD is misconceived. " ( 5 ) AFORESAID finding was recorded inspite of the fact that admittedly the department was transferred to D. D. A. much after 1. 10. 1967, the date from which the petitioner was not given the work. Secondly the petitioner had filed an affidavit in 1971 before the Industrial Tribunal to the effect that the department had been retransferred to the MCD. There was no evidence to the contrary and in any vase even according to the MCD the employees of that department were transfered to D. D. A. and none of them was relieved merely because the department was being transferred. ( 6 ) IN fact in this petition, I am concerned with the date from which the petitioner was not assigned any further work which means that he was relieved or his services were terminated and on that date the department was admittedly with the MCD. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner could not be retrenched as the conditions precedent for retrenchment were not fulfilled and thus the order was in contravention of section 25 (F) of the Industrial Dispute Act, ("the Act".) By now it is well-settled that section 25 (F) of the Act is mainly intended to give relief to retrenched workman. The qualification for relief u/s 25 (P) is that the person should be the workman employed in an industry and has been in continuous service for not less than one year under his employer. What is continuous service has been defined and explained in Section 25 (B) of the Act. The workman who is not in continuous service for a period of one year shall be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year if the workman during ths period of 12 months preceding the date with reference (o which calculation is to be made has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days. In the present case, the petitioner is admittedly a workman and the MCD is admittedly an industry. There is no dispute that the Petitioner did put in much more than 240 days in each year continuously for six years. In fact the allegations of the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal or before this Court have not been denied. This petition has remained pending for over 13 years and in spite of that no counter-affidavit has been filed by the MCD. The only contention of the learned counsel for the respondent before me was that the petitioner was a daily rated workman in a department which stood transferred to D. D. A. and as such he could not be assigned any work by the Management. This contention has no basis. It has repeatedly been held by the Supreme Court that a daily rated workman is as good a workman as any other provided he has put in the requisite number of days during the relevant period. In L. Robert D souza vs Xen, S. Railway, 1982 Service LJ. 319, it was held :- "therefore, assuming that he was a daily rated worker, once he has rendered continuous uninterrupted service for a period of one year or more, within the meaning of section 25f of the Act and his service is terminated for any reason whatsoever and his case does not fall in any of the excepted categories notwithstanding the fact that Rule 2505 Rly. Est. Manual would be attracted, it would have to be read subject to the provisions of the Act. Est. Manual would be attracted, it would have to be read subject to the provisions of the Act. Accordingly the termination of service in this case would constitute retrenchment and for not complying with pre-conditions to valid retrenchment, the order of termination would be illegal and invalid. " ( 7 ) IN view of the facts stated above and the law laid down by Supreme Court, it has to be held that the non-employment of the petitioner from 1. 10. 1967 amounts to his termination and the said termination is invalid for non-compliance with the pre-conditions to valid retrenchment. In fact the Management has not even alleged that there was any compliance with the pre-conditions to valid retrenchement. ( 8 ) THE next question which has to be considered is regarding the relief to be given to the petitioner. Obviously the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement but the difficulty is regarding the back wages. The management has led no evidence either before the Tribunal or before this Court to the effect that the petitioner wa in any way gainfully employed at any point of time. The petitioner in his statement before the Tribunal had stated that he was passing his days by doing manual labour now and then. There being no rebuttal it has to be held that the petitioner has not been gainfully employed during this period. The petitioner was only a daily rated workman and was getting Rs. 6. 00 per day. It cannot be known as to how many days he would have worked if he had remained in the same capacity with MCD for all these years. Ordinarily, I would have sent this case back to the Tribunal for determining back wages but considering the fact that the petitioner has been out of employment since 1967, I feel that it is not in the interest of justice that this matter should be delayed for any further period. In the circumstances, 1 am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000. 00 in lump sum towards back wages and is reinstated with immediate effect.