JUDGMENT : B.N. Srikrishna, J. 1.These are cross-petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning an order of the Industrial Court, Pune, dated 31st May, 1984 made in Complaint (ULP) No. 324 of 1981 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). For the sake of convenience. The first petitioner in the sake of convenience, the first petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3127 of 1984 will be referred to as "the Corporation" and the first respondent therein as "the employee". This reference will be in both the writ petitions, which are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The employee was working as an Electrician on daily basis in the employment of the corporation since the year 1967. He worked as Electrician in the Deputy Engineers's Section in the Civil Engineering Department of the Pune Division of the corporation. In that section, there is one permanent post of Artisan 'A' Electrician. The workman working on that post has to do house wiring work and also work in connection with electric water-pump, motor repairing, periodical fair electrical arrangements etc. There were a large number of Electricians and other employees who were employed on daily wages by the corporation. This became the subject-matter of negotiations between the union of the workmen and the corporation. A settlement was arrived at on 19th May, 1973 for the purpose of laying down the modalities of ad hoc absorption of daily wage earners on time-scale. Clause 8 of the settlement provided for absorption of daily wage earners on time-scale under the ad hoc scheme, the details of which were provided for in the settlement. A Seniority List of all persons who had worked on daily wages during the period of 1st January, 1970 to 31st March, 1973, was to be drawn up and the workmen were to be absorbed on time-scale permanent posts in accordance with fixation. Such a Seniority List was drawn up on 21st February, 1974. The employee happened to be at serial number 1 in the Seniority List of Electricians. On the strength of the terms of the settlement, the employee made representation for being absorbed as permanent Electrician on time-scale. Such a Seniority List was drawn up on 21st February, 1974. The employee happened to be at serial number 1 in the Seniority List of Electricians. On the strength of the terms of the settlement, the employee made representation for being absorbed as permanent Electrician on time-scale. The response of corporation was that there was no vacancy for the time being, and since the list was to operate till it was exhausted, a representation was made to the employee that he would be absorbed as and when a suitable vacancy occurred. On 1st January, 1980, the post of Artisan 'A' (Electrician) in the concerned section fell vacant due to retirement of one Khandkar, who was working on the said post. The employee again approached for being absorbed on this post. Instead of making him permanent in this post as Artisan 'A' (Electrician), he was appointed temporarily in the existing vacancy from 1st January, 1980 to 25th August, 1980. By an order dated 18th March, 1980, one B. Sayanna, Article 'A' Electrician attached to the Divisional Workshop, Pune, was temporarily transferred and posted in the Deputy Engineer's Section against existing vacancy of Electrician (Civil Engineering). As a matter of fact, on the said date, there was no vacancy as the employee was already working on the said post. In the same order dated 18th March, 1980, by way of foot-note, copy was endorsed to the A.M.E. Dy. Engineer with the endorsement; "Necessary relieving and joining reports should be forwarded to this office immediately. Shri A.J. Mame, Electrician, posted on temporary basis, should be discontinued when Shri Sayana, Article 'A', reports for duty". Pursuant to this instruction, the employee's service was discontinued from 18th March, 1980. 3. The employee moved the Industrial Court, Pune, by his Complaint (ULP) No. 13 of 1980 (subsequently renumbered as 324 of 1981). The complaint was made u/s 28 read with Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. After setting out the facts leading to his removal from services, the employee alleged that this removal from service amounted to a breach of the terms of the settlement dated 19th May, 1973 and, hence, an unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. He prayed for a declaration and appropriate reliefs. 4. After setting out the facts leading to his removal from services, the employee alleged that this removal from service amounted to a breach of the terms of the settlement dated 19th May, 1973 and, hence, an unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. He prayed for a declaration and appropriate reliefs. 4. The corporation contested the complaint, and contended that the appointment of the employee on the vacant post of Article 'A' Electrician in the Deputy Engineer's Section was only a temporary measure and that the employee had no right to the said post It was also contended that one of the requirements for being posted as Electrician 'A' was the passing of the prescribed trade test, which had not been dispensed with under the settlement as specifically highlighted by the note in the circular implementing the said demand. The corporation contended that, despite opportunities given to him, the employee had declined to appear for the trade test, and, therefore, his service had been discontinued with effect from 18th March, 1980, and an appropriately qualified Electrician 'A' was transferred from another section to fill in the post vacated by Khandkar. The parties led evidence before the Industrial Court on their rival contentions. The Industrial Court held that, even during the period when Khandkar was the permanent incumbent on the post of Article 'A' Electrician in the Deputy Engineer's Section , whenever he was on leave, the employee was appointed on time-scale to work in his place in the leave vacancy. The employee was substantively appointed as an Article 'B' Electrician on daily wages, and, before he could be absorbed into any permanent vacancy, the corporation had, by a policy decision, abolished all posts of Article 'B' Electrician. The Industrial Court took the view that, for due implementation of the Settlement dated 19th May, 1973 by the corporation, the employee was entitled to be treated as Article 'A' Electrician in the waiting list, and, whenever there was any vacancy in the Article 'A' Electrician's post, the employee ought to have been appointed thereupon in the time-scale vacancy, whether temporarily or otherwise. That this was the manner in which the settlement had to be implemented was evidence from the fact that, whenever Khandkar, who was working permanently in the Article 'A' Electrician's post, was on leave, the employee was posted to work in his place. In the year 1979, Khandkar had gone on long leave, during which period the employee continued to work on the said post for 12 months on time scale. On Khandkar's retirement with effect from 1st January, 1980, the employee was orally posted to work in the vacancy of Article 'A' Electrician, without any stipulation that he was being appointed thereupon temporarily. It is only subsequently, when the order of 18th March, 1980 was issued, that it was stated that the posting of the employee on Khandkar's post was temporary, and this was subsequently indicated by a specific order dated 31st May, 1980, wherein it was stated that the employee had been temporarily appointed as Electrician on daily wages at the rate of Rs. 10.77 per day on the Electrician's post in the Deputy Engineer's Section for the period from 1st February, 1980 to 25th March, 1980 against the existing vacancy. The learned Judge of the Industrial Court found, in my view, rightly, that this stipulation as to temporary posting was an afterthought, inasmuch as no such stipulation was made when the employee was initially posted to work on the said post. 5. On the material before it, the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the corporation had decided to bring in B. Sayanna as the permanent incumbent in the vacancy caused by Khandkar's retirement. Having decided this, the Order dated 18th March, 1980 was issued, and it was only by way of a postscript that it was added in the said order that, upon his reporting for work in the Deputy Engineer's Section , the employee's services should be terminated. The learned Judge, therefore, had no difficulty in recording a finding that what was done was a contravention of the terms of the Settlement, dated 19th May, 1973, and was, therefore, an unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item (9), Schedule IV, of the Act. The learned Judge, therefore, had no difficulty in recording a finding that what was done was a contravention of the terms of the Settlement, dated 19th May, 1973, and was, therefore, an unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item (9), Schedule IV, of the Act. The learned Judge of the Industrial Court also recorded a further finding that, by the time his service was terminated, the employee had already rendered more than 240 days' service, and, therefore, whatever might have been the motivations of the corporation for terminating his service, if such termination of service did not fall within any of the Exceptions to Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947., it would amount to retrenchment. See, in this connection, the judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India N. Sundramoney 1976 1 LLJ 478 . The procedure for effecting retrenchment under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, not having been followed, the order of termination of service of the employee was illegal and contrary to the statute and, hence, also an unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item (9) of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. 6. In my view, both the findings recorded by the Court below are perfectly justified. Though Mr. Pai, learned advocate appearing for the corporation, strenuously urged that, in the face of refusal by the employee to pass the trade test, the corporation was left with no other alternative but to terminate his service, I am not impressed by the contention. It is not disputed that the corporation's concerned industrial establishment used to employ more than 100 workmen on an average per day, and, consequently, the provision of Chapter VB of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, were applicable. It is also not disputed that the procedure prescribed u/s 25N of the said Act was not complied with before terminating the service of the employee. Regardless of all other arguments, this ground alone should be sufficient to uphold the order of the Industrial Court. To this contention, there is absolutely no answer. The corporation might never have imagined that the termination of the employee's service would amount to 'retrenchment' as defined in Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and does not appear to have applied its mind to this aspect of the matter at all. To this contention, there is absolutely no answer. The corporation might never have imagined that the termination of the employee's service would amount to 'retrenchment' as defined in Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and does not appear to have applied its mind to this aspect of the matter at all. The result is, therefore, that I uphold the finding of the Industrial Court that the order of termination of the employee's service was illegal and deserved to be set aside. Consequently, the petition of the corporation must fail. 7. Though the Industrial Court set aside the order of termination of service of the employee and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service from 26th March, 1980 in Article 'A' Electrician's post, the Industrial Court has directed payment of only half back-wages in the circumstances indicated in its order. The cross-petition, No. 5578 of 1988, by the employee is intended to challenge that portion of the Industrial Court's order which denied 50% back wages to the employee. Regardless of the merits of the petition, in my view, the petition deserves to be dismissed for gross delay and laches in approaching this Court. The impugned order of the Industrial Court was given on 31st May 1984 and Writ petition No. 5578 of 1988 was filed on 17th August, 1988. I see no reason why the petition should be entertained on merits under Article 227 of the Constitution, even if Rule has been granted therein. In my view, the impugned order of the Industrial Court deserves to be upheld, as it does substantial justice, and as I am not inclined to grant any further relief to the employee for the reason that he has not approached this Court in good time. 8. In the result, both Writ Petitions, 3127 of 1984 and 5578 of 1988, and hereby dismissed, and the Rules issued therein discharged, with no order as to costs. 9. Mr. Pai applied for stay of operation of the Industrial Court's order by further four weeks. In my view, there is no justification for the same, as the matter has been hanging fire from the year 1984, and it is high time that the order is implemented. Stay refused.