Honble RAJENDRA, SAXENA, J. — The petitioner, by means of this writ petition has challenged the legality of retrenchment order dated 26-3-91 terminating his services w.e.f. 31.3.91 (Annex. 6), notice of retrenchment under Sec. 25 F (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (In short, the Act(Annex, 7) and forwarding letter Annex. 5 and prayed that those be quashed; and prayed that he be reinstated in services with full back wages, and that his services be also regularised with all consequential benefits. 2. Briefly, the matrix which has led to filing this third writ petition against the respondents can be recapitulated like this. It appears that Dy. Personnel Manager (I & M) of the Indian Telephone Industries Limited, Installation and Maintenance Unit No 5, Banglore, by his letter dated 3.11.1987 (Annex. 7) informed the petitioner regarding recruitment of temporary Supervisors (Civil) for their Installation work to be undertaken in Punjab, Rajasthan and Jammu against the Turn Key Project on consolidated salary of Rs. 1000/-p.m. He further informed the petitioner that the District Employment Exchange had forwarded his name as a likely candidate for their requirement and that the job involved supervision of civil works like construction of building, tower, foundation, sanitary and road work for Micro Wave Stations and that the vacancy was temporary till the completion of the project, which may extend to about two years. The petitioner applied for the said post and was interviewed on 7-1-88. The Chief Engineer, Installation and Maintenance Unit, Jodhpur (non-petitioner No. 4) vide his letter dated 22-2-88 (Annex. 2) informed the petitioner that he has been provisionally selected for the post of Supervisor (C) for their I & M Unit at Jodhpur on purely temporary and contract basis for a period of one year only on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1000/- p.m. that he may be posted anywhere in Rajasthan State; and that he will be governed by the Rules and Regulations of Companys Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975. The petitioner joined his duty on 6-3-1988. After completion of one years tenure his services were extended verbally upto 29-3-1990. Thereafter, non-petitioner No. 4 by his letter dated "0-3-1990 (Annex. 3) extended his services upto 4-5-90 on the same terms and conditions on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1200/-p.m. It was also mentioned in Annex. 3 that petitioners services will be treated, terminated automatically on 4-5-90. After completion of one years tenure his services were extended verbally upto 29-3-1990. Thereafter, non-petitioner No. 4 by his letter dated "0-3-1990 (Annex. 3) extended his services upto 4-5-90 on the same terms and conditions on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1200/-p.m. It was also mentioned in Annex. 3 that petitioners services will be treated, terminated automatically on 4-5-90. Thereafter, petitioners services were farther extended orally. During the continuation of his service, the petitioner filed SB Civil Writ Petition No. 533/91 "Dinesh Kumar vs. Union of India & ors. on 5-1-91 in this Court seeking the relief for giving him regular pay-scale and consequent benefits on the basis of "equal pay for equal work", which was admitted on 6-2-91. It is the case of the petitioner that due to the said writ petition, non - petitioners became annoyed and that vide letter dated 30-1-91 (Annex. 4), on the one hand, first of all his services were extended upto 28-2-91 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1500/- p.m. on the same terms and conditions, on the other hand simultaneously it was also mentioned therein that he was offered one months notice and compensation as required under Sec. 25 FFF of the Act and that his services will be treated terminated automatically in the after-noon of 28-2-91. He was also directed to collect his dues in the office of respondent No. 4. The said letter was received by the petitioner on 7-2-91. The petitioner, therefore, filed second writ petition (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 730/91 "Dinesh Kumar Vs. Union of India & ors.) challenging his retrenchment on the ground of noncompliance of the provisions of Section 25-F and violation of other provisions of the Act. This Court by its order dated 19-3-91 held that the termination order (Annex. 4) was in violation of the provisions of sec. 25-F of the Act and quashed the same. The Court, however, left open the controversy regarding the alleged violation of Sec. 25-N of the Act for want of necessary facts. 3. The case of the petitioner is that after obtaining the certified copy of the said judgment dated 19-3-91, he approached the non-petitioner No. 4 on 30.3.91 for joining his duties. The non-petitioner No. 4 permitted him to join the duties, but simultaneously on the same day again served him with the impugned termination order dated 26.3.91 Annex. 3. The case of the petitioner is that after obtaining the certified copy of the said judgment dated 19-3-91, he approached the non-petitioner No. 4 on 30.3.91 for joining his duties. The non-petitioner No. 4 permitted him to join the duties, but simultaneously on the same day again served him with the impugned termination order dated 26.3.91 Annex. 6) alleging inter alia that the job for the performance of which the petitioner was appointed had since been over and consequently his services were no more required. It was mentioned in that letter that his services shall come to an end w.e.f. 31.3.91. It was further mentioned therein that pay-orders Numbers 458262 and 458269 dated 28.2.91 and 26 3.91 for an amount of Rs. 6750/- for one months notice, and retrenchment compensation were also enclosed. However, no such pay orders were given to him on 26.3.91. The petitioner was also served with a forwarding letter dated 26.3.91 (Annex. 5) as well as a copy of the form of notice of retrenchment under Section 25-F(C) of the Act dated 25 3 91. (Annex. 7). 4. It is alleged by the petitioner that Indian Telephone Industries Limited (ITIL) is a Government of India undertaking having its head office at Banglore, that its different units are situated in Bombay, Madras, Calcutta, Delhi and different towns of various States namely Punjab, Rajasthan, Jammu etc., that its Installation and Maintenance Units (I&M Units) are working at so many places throughout the country and that its production units are situated at Nami, Banglore, Sri Nagar, Rai Bareli, Palghat and Mankapur etc. having more than ten thousand employees. It is further the case of the petitioner that under the supervision and control of non-petitioner No. 4, I&M Units are working at Jodhpur Circle, Bikaner Circle, Hissar Circle, Bhatinda Circle and Jammu Circle, wherein more than 150 employees are still working under the management of non-petitioners Nos. 2 & 3 including about 35 employees, who were appointed after him and whose names find mention in Annex. 9. 5. The petitioner has alleged that the impugned termination order (Annex. 6) is mala-fide, arbitrary, per se-illegal and void being violative of mandatory provisions of Sec. 25-G and 25-N of the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that Shri Devi Lal. 9. 5. The petitioner has alleged that the impugned termination order (Annex. 6) is mala-fide, arbitrary, per se-illegal and void being violative of mandatory provisions of Sec. 25-G and 25-N of the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that Shri Devi Lal. Technical Supervisor (Electrical), who was junior to him, has been retained in service ; that civil works in the I & M Unit under the charge of non-petitioner No. 4 have not been completed and that such work is also in progress all over India under the management of ITIL, where he can be transferred. According to him, the non-petitioners also did not prepare the seniority list of the employees. That several persons employed like him have already been absorbed permanently. Therefore, his termination is in clear violation of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, that the alleged closure of I & M Unit, Jodhpur is neither genuine nor bonafide nor real. He has, therefore, prayed that his retrenchment order (Annex. 6)along with Annex. 5 & 7 be quashed, that his services be regularised and that he be paid all consequential benefits. 6. No reply was filed on behalf of the Union of India, non-petitioner No. 1. 7. In separate replies filed on behalf of non-petitioners No. 2& 3 and non-petitioner No. 4, it has been emphatically asserted that ITIL is an industry, which manufactures and sells telecommunication instruments and for that purpose it does not require regular staff for undertaking the civil works. However, some telecommunication instruments, are manufactured as per specific requirements of the Ministry of Defence and other Departments of Government of India. Such instruments at times are required to be installed under the supervision of the ITIL, so that their technical workability is maintained. They have pleaded that such installations of telecommunication instruments are not a regular phenomenon of ITIL and that on being required to install such telecommunication instruments and to ensure that those installations work and function, Turn Key Projects are undertaken as independent works, which are inherently of a temporary nature being for a specified work and that the life of such project is coterminous with the completion of the work. The Turn Key Project in question was undertaken by 1 & M Unit, Jodhpur for the installation of Micro Wave Towers and certain telecommunication machines for the Ministry of Defence at different places. The Turn Key Project in question was undertaken by 1 & M Unit, Jodhpur for the installation of Micro Wave Towers and certain telecommunication machines for the Ministry of Defence at different places. This also included civil works like construction of building, tower installation sanitary and road works for micro wave stations. The work of the said Turn Key Project has already been completed not only in Jodhpur but at other places also and that the unit is under the process of being wound up. Therefore, after the completion of the said project, the ITIL does not at all require any such staff as was engaged by the unit. It is the case of respondents No. 2 to 4 that before the establishment of a Turn Key Project or Unit, by way of providing infra-structure, Dy. Personnel Manager (I & M) had issued letter dated 3.11.87 (Annex. 1), but on account of that it cannot be claimed that the petitioner was appointed as Supervisor in the ITIL and that his services were transferable at any place throughout India. They emphatically asserted that the impugned termination order was neither mala fide nor motivated. They alleged that at the time of decision of the writ petition No. 730/91 i.e. on 19.3.91, it was clearly given out on behalf of the non-petitioner No. 4 in the Court that since the termination order Annexure-3 had been quashed, the petitioner should report on duty immediately on the next day. But the petitioner did not report on duty next day because he knew that there was no subsisting requirement of his service and that a fresh termination order was likely to be passed against him. It has been alleged by respondent No. 4 that after rectifying all the technical defects, a fresh termination order dated 26.3.91 (Annex. 6) was passed and apprehending that the petitioner will avoid the receipt thereof, Annexures 5, 6 & 7 were despatched along with the demand orders to the petitioner by registered post. The petitioner, however, avoided to take the delivery thereof. Hence when on 30.3.91, the petitioner appeared in the office, copies of Annexures 5, 6 and 7 were delivered to him personally. It is alleged that the impugned retrenchment order does offend the provisions of Section 25-F and 25-FFF of the Act. The petitioner, however, avoided to take the delivery thereof. Hence when on 30.3.91, the petitioner appeared in the office, copies of Annexures 5, 6 and 7 were delivered to him personally. It is alleged that the impugned retrenchment order does offend the provisions of Section 25-F and 25-FFF of the Act. The non-petitioners have emphatically averred that neither 150 employees are still working in the I and M Unit Jodhpur nor any employee of this Unit has been absorbed anywhere in any other unit under the ITIL nor any person junior to the petitioner working as Supervisor (Civil) has been retained in service nor the service of any employee has been confirmed in I and M UNIT, Jodhpur Circle. On the other hand, they have categorically pleaded that the said Unit has been closed w.e.f. 31.8.91 that Shri Narendra Kumar, who was appointed as Supervisor (Civil) has already been removed and that Shri Devi Lal, Supervisor (Electrical), is also being removed within few days. The respondents have maintained that the provisions of Sec. 25-N of the Act are not at all attracted in this case, because I & M Unit Jodhpur Circle is not an establishment where more than 100 workmen were employed on an average per working day during the preceding 12 months and consequently provisions of Chapter-V-B of the Act do not apply in this case. It has been asserted that not a single employee, junior to the petitioner, has been retained in service and as such provisions of Section 25-G have also not been violated that the work of the project has been completed and, therefore, the employees cannot be retained in service any more and hence the termination of petitioner was neither unfair nor mala fide not illegal. They have also maintained that the ITIL does not have a regular cadre of Supervisor (Civil) and as such there is no question of absorbing him or regularising his services. They have also maintained that the ITIL does not have a regular cadre of Supervisor (Civil) and as such there is no question of absorbing him or regularising his services. It has also been alleged that the petitioner was intimated that the original pay-orders along with Annexures 5, 6 and 7 had been sent to him by the registered post, but he managed to return the said registered letter undelivered and thereby by his own fault did not receive the salary and compensation, which was validly and properly offered to him simultaneously along with the retrenchment order and as such on that count the retrenchment order cannot be struck down and the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. It has also been asserted that since no Supervisor (Civil) has been retained by the non-petitioner No. 4, there was no question of preparing any seniority list. 8. The non-petitioners also pleaded that since the present writ petition involves various disputed questions of fact about the number of persons employed in the I and A Unit, retention of juniors, absorption of other persons and about the continuance of other civil works at other places, the only appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is under the Act and, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. 9. The petitioner filed a rejoinder and asserted that from Annexure-1, it was abundantly clear that the ITIL proposed to recruit Supervisors (Civil) for installation work to be undertaken in Punjab, Rajasthan and Jammu States. Therefore, it is wrong to suggest that the work at 1 & M Unit, Jodhpur was independent and separate work. He maintained that the Turn Key Project is governed and controlled by the General Manager, ITIL (I & M Unit), Banglore and that non-petitioners No. 3 & 4 are under the ITIL. 10. It may be mentioned here that the operation of the retrenchment order Annexure-6 was stayed by this Courts order dated 2.8.91 and in compliance thereof the non-petitioner No. 4 directed the petitioner to report on duty at RCPEAK, Udhampur Division, J & K State and to D.M. (C), Udhampur vide Annexure-12. Thereupon, the petitioner joined his services at Micro Wave Station, RCPEAK, Udhampur as Supervisor. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 changed his posting and transferred him to ASCON Site Tibri Cantt.. Gurdaspur, Punjab vide his letter dated 2-9-1991 (Annex. 13). 11. Thereupon, the petitioner joined his services at Micro Wave Station, RCPEAK, Udhampur as Supervisor. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 changed his posting and transferred him to ASCON Site Tibri Cantt.. Gurdaspur, Punjab vide his letter dated 2-9-1991 (Annex. 13). 11. The petitioner in his rejoinder has stated that in compliance of order Annexure - 13, he worked at ASCON Site Tibri upto 6.12 91. Thereafter the Superintending Engineer (Civil), Ambala by his letter dated 3.12.91 (Annex. 14) informed him that since there was no work for him at Gurdaspur, he should report back at Jodhpur. It is alleged that this was deliberately done with mala-fide intention & on the instructions of non-petitioner No. 4. The petitioner has pleaded that civil work under the Superintending Engineer (Civil), Ambala is still going on and that ten buildings and maintenance at Jullundhar, Amritsar, Matala, Gurdaspur, Paijaya Kalan, Harika, Moga, Ferojepur, Beas Pathankot and construction work of two buildings at Chandigarh and Ambala Cantt are still under progress. He has further pleaded that on 26.10.91, one Shri Pratapsagar Seth was appointed on the post of Technical Supervisor (Civil) at Chandi Mangal, which clearly established that civil works are still in progress in this project. The petitioner has reiterated that in the I & M Unit, in Rajasthan, and Jammu more than 150 persons are still working and even at Jodhpur office of Project Manager, about 25 employees are working and that civil work at ASCON Project Khatipura, Jaipur is still going on. The petitioner has thus reiterated that more than 100 workmen are in the establishment of I & M Jodhpur and as such provisions of Section 25-N of the Act apply. 12. A sur-rejoinder has also been filed on behalf of the non-petitioners No. 2 & 3, wherein it has been refuted that maintenance work of ten buildings and construction work of two buildings under the S.E. I & M Unit is still going on. On the other hand, it has been pleaded that those works have already been completed and those have either been handed over or are in the process of handing over. It has, therefore, been asserted that there is no subsisting requirement of work for a Technical Supervisor (Civil). On the other hand, it has been pleaded that those works have already been completed and those have either been handed over or are in the process of handing over. It has, therefore, been asserted that there is no subsisting requirement of work for a Technical Supervisor (Civil). It has, however, been admitted that Shri Pratap Sagar Seth was appointed as Technical Supervisor (Civil) on 26.1.91, but he was appointed for a very short requirement of supeivising some road work, which has ceased to exist w.e.f. 31-12-91 and that Shri Pratap Sagar Seth has also been removed from service. However, his termination order has not been filed. It has also been asserted that deduction of provident fund amount is a statutory requirement and the provident fund account number has no co-relation with the staff strength. It has been mentioned that the I and M Units at Jallandhar, Bhatinda and Jodhpur have already been closed, that the civil work at Ambala and Jammu Units have been completed and that those are in the process of closure and that no Technical Supervisor (Civil) is now working there. It has also been maintained that the project at Jodhpur has been completely closed; that only some stones are lying there; that no work is going on in Ascon Project, Khatipura, Jaipur, which has been completed and only the buildings are to be handed over. It has also been asserted that ITIL is already suffering from severe over-staffing and that there is no post for absorbing the petitioner. 13. The petitioner has filed a reply to the sur-rejoinder, categorically denying the pleadings made therein. 14. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the relevant record. 15. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the petitioner that he was recruited by the Dy. Personnel Manager (I&M) of the IT.I.L. that the respondent No. 4, the Chief Engineer, Installation and Maintenance, Jodhpur is under the administrative control of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and that the I & M Unit, Jodhpur is a constituent of I.T.I.L. and therefore, I.T.I.L. is the principal employer of the petitioner. It has been argued that the I.T.I.L. is an industrial establishment wherein more than ten thousand employees are working and that I and M Unit, Jodhpur being its constituent also employees more than 100 workers on an average per working day. It has been argued that the I.T.I.L. is an industrial establishment wherein more than ten thousand employees are working and that I and M Unit, Jodhpur being its constituent also employees more than 100 workers on an average per working day. Therefore, since the petitioner was in continuous service for more than a year, he could not be retrenched without observing the conditions precedent of retrerchment as enshrined in Sec. 25-N of the Act, which require a three months notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the prior permission of the appropriate Government. Hence, the termination of the petitioner being in violation of Sec. 25 N is per se illegal and void. The learned counsel for the petitioner have asserted that petitioners retrenchment is also in violation of Sections 25-G and 25-F of the Act. They have alleged that it is not a case of closure of an industrial undertaking; that the work in I and M Units of I.T.I.L. is still in progress; that service of an employee of I.T.I L. is transferable throughout India and as such even if the work of the I and M Unit at Jodhpur has come to an end still then the petitioner can be absorbed/transferred in any other Unit/undertaking of the I.T.I.L. They have strenuously maintained that since the petitioner had filed two writ petitions against the respondents which annoyed them and as a result of which in retaliation thereof, the petitioner has been malafidely and arbitrarily retrenched. 16. On the other hand, Shri N. P. Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 has emphatically assertsd that I.T.I.L. is an industry, which manufactures and sells telecommunication instruments and for that purpose, it does not require regular staff for under taking the civil works. According to him, some telecommunication instruments, which were manufactured as per specific requirements of the Ministry of Defence and other department of the Government of India, were required to be installed under the supervision of the I.T.I.L. to ensure the maintenance of their technical workability. Therefore, to instal such telecommunication instruments and to ensure their technical workability, Turn Key Projects were undertaken by the I &M Unit as independent works, which ware inheritedly of a temporary nature for a specified job and that the life of such project was co-terminus with the completion of the work. Therefore, to instal such telecommunication instruments and to ensure their technical workability, Turn Key Projects were undertaken by the I &M Unit as independent works, which ware inheritedly of a temporary nature for a specified job and that the life of such project was co-terminus with the completion of the work. According to him, the work in question was undertaken by the I & M Unit, Jodhpur for installation of micro-wave towers and other telecommunications machines for the Ministry of Defence at different places. This work also included civil works like construction of building, micro-wave stations. According to him, the work of the said Turn Key Project has already been completed and the I & M Unit, Jodhpur under which the petitioner was appointed, has already been wound up w e.f. 31.08.1991. According to him, the I & M Unit, Jodhpur is an independent unit of the I.T.I.L. and has no functional integrality with the latter and that the closure of the I & M Unit, Jodhpur has nothing to do with the functioning of the I.T.I.L. He has submitted that at no point of time, I & M Unit, Jodhpur has employed over 100 persons and, therefore, in view of the provisions of 25-K of the Act, the provisions of Section 25-N of the Act are not at all applicable, Therefore, the petitioner was neither entitled for three months notice nor it was necessary for the I and M Unit, Jodhpur to take any permission from the appropriate Government for its closure. He has vigorously contended that since the I and M Unit, Jodhpur was set up for construction of buildings, roads micro-wave towers and other construction work for installation of the telecommunications machines manufactured by the I.T.I.L., the provisions of Sec. 25-FFF (2) of the Act, apply in this case and since the completion of the said work could not be completed within two years from the date on which the undertaking has been set up, the petitioner was validly given notice and other compensation under Section 25-F of the Act. Therefore, there was no violation of the provisions of Sec. 25-F of the Act. He has also Submitted that in the I and M Unit, Jodhpur there was only one post of Technical Supervisor (Civil); that Devi Lai Electric Supervisor, belonged to a different category and that his services have already been terminated. Therefore, there was no violation of the provisions of Sec. 25-F of the Act. He has also Submitted that in the I and M Unit, Jodhpur there was only one post of Technical Supervisor (Civil); that Devi Lai Electric Supervisor, belonged to a different category and that his services have already been terminated. Moreover, one Pratap Sagar Seth was appointed on 26-10-91 for a very short and emergent civil work at Cbandi-mandir and that his services have already been terminated w.e.f.31-12-91. Therefore the rule of "last come first go" has also not been contravened and there is no contravention of Sec. 25-G of the Act. According to him, since the I & M Unit, Jodhpur has already been wound up and all the employees thereof have been removed from service, the retrenchment of the petitioner is neither mala-fide nor arbitrary in nor retaliation of his earlier writ petitions as alleged by him. He has argued that the petitioner is still continuing in service due to the ad-interim order of this Court dated 2-8-91 and that he is being paid salary regularly with- out any work. According to him, there is no post on which the petitioner can either be absorbed or transferred in the I.T.I.L. because the I.T.I.L. has now ceased undertaking such Turn Key Projects. 17. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. 18. A bare perusal of letter Annexure-1 of the Dy. Personnel Manager (I & M), I.T.I.L., reveals that the I.T.I.L. proposed to recruit Supervisors (Civil) for their installation work to be undertaken in Punjab, Rajasthan and Jammu against a Turn Key Project at a consolidated salary and that the vacancy was temporary till the completion of Project, which may extend to about two years. It is not in dispute that after interview, the petitioner was selected and the Chief Engineer (Civil) (I&M), Jodhpur by his letter Annexure-2, gave him appointment on purely temporary and contract basis for one year only on a consolidated salary at the rate of Rs. 1000/-p.m. It was specifically mentioned therein that the petitioner will be governed by the Rules, Regulations and Companys Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975 and that he may be posted anywhere in Rajasthan State. 1000/-p.m. It was specifically mentioned therein that the petitioner will be governed by the Rules, Regulations and Companys Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975 and that he may be posted anywhere in Rajasthan State. Thereafter, in his subsequent extention of service letters Annexures 3 and 4 also the same terms and conditions of appointment were repeated except that the consolidated pay of the petitioner was enhanced to Rs. 1200/-and thereafter to Rs. 1500/-p.m. 19. Rule 3(a) of the I.T.I.L. Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975 (in short, Rules, 1975) lays down that an "employee" means any person employed in the Company other than the persons engaged on casual basis and those covered under the Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 as amended from time to time. Rule 3(b) says, "Company", means, the Indian Telephone Industries Limited, which expression shall include all its factories, head office and other administrative offices, as well as sales and service offices, sub-offices and branches, now in existence and those, which may be established in future and wherever situated. Thus, the I & M Unit, Jodhpur was a constituent of the I.T.I.L. and was engaged for installation work to be undertaken in Punjab, Rajasthan and Jammu against a Turn Key Project. This Turn Key Project also included civil works like constructions of buildings, towers foundation, sanitary and road works for micro-wave stations, besides the installation of tele-communication machineries. The said Turn Key Project was expected to be completed in about two years. Thus, the I & M Unit at Jodhpur was an independent Unit of the I.T.I.L.. because the work undertaken by it was installation of micro-wave stations and execution of the aforementioned civil works. It is not in dispute that the I.T.I.L. manufactures and sells telecommunication instruments, which is its main business. However, some tele-communication instruments, manufactured by the I.T.I.L., as per specific requirements of the Ministry of Defence and other department of the Government of India, are required to be installed under its supervision to ensure their technical workability. Therefore, for such installation work, the I.T.I.L. undertakes Turn Key Projects as independent works, which are inherently of a temporary nature being for a specified work and that the life of such project is co-terminus with the completion of such work. Therefore, for such installation work, the I.T.I.L. undertakes Turn Key Projects as independent works, which are inherently of a temporary nature being for a specified work and that the life of such project is co-terminus with the completion of such work. Hence, it stands well proved that the I & M Unit, Jodhpur undertook the installation of Micro-wave towers and certain tele-communication machines for the Ministry of Defence at different places including civil works like construction of building, tower installation, sanitary and road works for micro-wave stations. 20. Section 25-FFF of the Act deals with the compensation to workmen in case of closing down of undertakings. Sub-section (2) of Section 25-FFF specifically lays down that where an undertaking set-up for the construction of buildings, bridges, roads, canals, dams or other constructions work, is closed down on account of completion of the work, within two years from the date on which the undertaking had been set up, no workman employed therein shall be entitled to any compensation under clause (b) of Section 25-F of the Act but if the construction work is not so completed within two years, he shall be entitled to notice and compensation under that section for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months. 21. The objects of Section 25-FFF are to provide for involuntary unemployment in case of closure of an undertaking and to create a sense of security in a worker to a reasonable extent that in case he sticks to his work, he will not be thrown out when his employment is terminated either when the industry continues to run or when it is closed down for any reason and to raise the position and status of labour and to standardise its rights in relation to the industry. However, sub-section (2) of Section 25-FFF completely prompts an employer from paying any compensation on closure of the undertaking, if the undertaking is set-up for construction of buildings, bridges, roads, canals, dams or other construction work and the establishment is closed down within two years from the date on which it was set up. But if the construction work is not so completed within two years then the employer is bound to give notice and compensation as required under Sec. 25-F of the Act. 22. But if the construction work is not so completed within two years then the employer is bound to give notice and compensation as required under Sec. 25-F of the Act. 22. There were no provisions restricting or preventing lay off and retrenchment in the Act previously. In respect of the closure, by an amending Act of 1972, Section 25-FF (a) was inserted requiring an employer to give sixty days notice of intention of closing an undertaking which employed 50 or more persons prior to closure. However, the proviso to Section 25-FF (a) specifically declares that nothing in Sec. 25-FF (a) shall apply to an undertaking set up for the construction of buildings, bridges, roads, canals, dams, or for other construction work or project. Therefore, for the closure of such an undertaking, sixty days notice in the prescribed manner to the appropriate Government is not necessary for the intended closure of such undertaking. 23. By the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1976, and the Amending Act 46 of 1982 and Amending Act, 49 of 1984, a new Chapter V-B containing Sections 25-K to 25-S has been engrafted in the Act. This Chapter puts strict curbs on employers in effecting lay-off, retrenchment and closure of industrial establishments employing 100 or more workmen. Section 25-K declares that the provisions of Chapter V-B shall apply to an industrial establishment (not being an establishment of an seasonal character or in which work is performed only intermitentiy) in which not less than 100 workmen were employed on an average per working day for the proceeding 12 months. Therefore, the provisions of Sec. 25-N of the Act, which deals with the condition precedent of retrenchment of workmen in an industrial establishment, will only apply when it is proved or established that in such an undertaking not less than 100 workman were employed on an average per working days for the proceding 12 months. 24. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that since the I & M Unit, Jodhpur is a unit of the I.T.I.L,, which has more than 10,000 workmen on its rolls, it should be deemed that more than 100 workmen were employed by the 1 & M Unit, Jodhpur and as such the provisions of Section 25-N apply in this case. 1 am afraid this contention is apparently misconceived and the same must abort for the reasons mentioned hereunder. 25. 1 am afraid this contention is apparently misconceived and the same must abort for the reasons mentioned hereunder. 25. In Management of Hindustan Steel Limited vs. The Workmen 1), the Hindustan Steel Limited, whose main business was to manufactures and sell steel also undertook the Ranchi Housing Project for construction of houses and other civil works. It recruited the workman, N to the work-charge establishment of the Ranchi Housing Project on a consolidated salary in the year 1960. It was made clear to him that the post was purely temporary subject to termination with or without notice and after accepting those conditions, N joined his duties. He was later on appointed as Overseer with the clear stipulation that his appointment would continue upto 31.03.1961 though it could be extended in case his services were to be required beyond that date. The construction and the connected residuary work relating to the Ranchi Housing Project, which had started in the year 1960, were over by the end of the year 1966 and it was decided to wound up the said project and retrench 13 workmen including N after giving notice and paying compensation to them. It was alleged that N was appointed as Work Supervisor and thereafter as an Overseer, where he worked efficiently to the satisfaction of all concerned; that he was served with the chargesheet in the year 1964 on the ground that there was some shortage of steel rods and after an enquiry, he was found guilty and dismissed and that he had approached the Labour Court under Sec. 25 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 complaining against his dismissal. The Labour Court held the order of dismissal as unjustified and illegal and ordered his reinstatement. It was the case of the workman that he resumed his duties but some big bosses of the management were not happy on account of his reinstatement with the result that he was again charge-sheeted in the year 1966 on the ground that he had falsely stated that he had passed the Senior Cambridge Examination and that thereupon he filed a civil suit for declaration that proceedings initiated against him by the employer were malafide. During the pendency of that suit, N was served with a retrenchment order purporting to be under Sec. 25-F of the Act, which according to him was malafide and unjustified. During the pendency of that suit, N was served with a retrenchment order purporting to be under Sec. 25-F of the Act, which according to him was malafide and unjustified. It was contended on behalf of the workman that only the work of the Housing Project at Ranchi had been completed and that unless the entire undertaking of the Hindustan Steel Limited was closed down the provisions of Sec. 25-FFF (2) will not apply. The apex court turned down this contention and observed that the word "undertaking" as used in sec. 25-FFF has been used in its ordinary sense connoting thereby any work, enterprise, project or business undertaking and that it is not intended to cover the entire industry or business of the employer. The Apex Court further observed that even closure or stoppage of a part of the business activities of the employer woold be seen in law to be covered by Sec. 25-FFF (2). It was held that the Ranchi Housing Project was clearly a distinct venture undertaking by the Hindustan Steel Limited and that it had a distinct beginning and an end; that a separate office was apparently set up for the said venture and that on the completion of the said venture that undertaking was closed. It was, therefore, held that the workman was only entitled to notice and compensation under Section 25-F read with Section 25-FFF (2) of the Act. Similar are the facts of the case in hand. 26. In Workmen of the Strawboard Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. M/s. Strawboard Manufacturing Company Limited (2) the said company owned two units known as the Strawboard Mill and the Regmal Mill. Strawboard was manufactured in S Mill and abrassive Paper-Cloth was prepared in R Mill. These two mills were situated close to each other with only a railway line intervening. Each had a factory registered separately under the Factories Act but one balance-sheet and one profit and loss accounts were prepared for the Company as a whole consolidating the accounts of both units. S Mill was started sometime in the year 1932 and R Mill was established in 1940. S Mill had more than 200 workmen, whereas R Mill had about 50 workmen. The company closed the S Mill on the ground of non-availability of the raw material and terminated the services of the workmen of this mill by tsages. S Mill was started sometime in the year 1932 and R Mill was established in 1940. S Mill had more than 200 workmen, whereas R Mill had about 50 workmen. The company closed the S Mill on the ground of non-availability of the raw material and terminated the services of the workmen of this mill by tsages. On a dispute being raised by the workmen over their termination of service, the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The closure of the S Mill was challenged by the workmen. It was held by the Supreme Court that the most important aspect in a case relating to closure is whether one unit has such componental relation that closing of one must lead to the closing of the other or the one cannot reasonably exist without the other.lt was further observed that functional integrality will assume and add significance in a case of closure of a branch or unit; that the other unit is capable of functioning in isolation is of very material import in the case of closure and that there was bound to be a shift of emphasis in application of various tests from one case to another. It was held that in the circumstances, the units viz., the Strawboard Mill and the Regmal Mill owned by the Strawboard Mill Company did not form the part of one Unit and that therefore, the closure of Strawboard Mill was legitimate and that the workmen were only entitled to compensation as provided under Section 25-FFF (1) of the Act. In the case in hand, the main business of the IT.I.L. is to manufacture telecommunication instruments/machinary and not to undertake civil works like construction of buildings, micro-wave towers etc. Therefore, the work undertaken by the I& M, Unit, Jodhpur under the Turn Key Project is an independent work and the closure of the I & M Unit after completion of the Turn Key Project has nothing to do with the functioning of the ITIL. Hence, there is no functional integrality with the Turn Key Project undertaken by the I & M Unit, Jodhpur and the I.T.I.L. and therefore, the Workmen employed by the I.T.I.L. cannot be taken to be on the rolls of I & M Unit, Jodhpur. 27. In Usha Steel Treatment, Bombay Vs. Association of Engineering Workers, Bombay (3), a firm carried on business of metal processing at two factories. 27. In Usha Steel Treatment, Bombay Vs. Association of Engineering Workers, Bombay (3), a firm carried on business of metal processing at two factories. Both the factories were situated only about 200 yards away from each other. Both the units/factories had independent locantions, separate factory licences and separate municipal licences. The two units had separate stores and maintained separate accounts and balance-sheets. The workmen of both the units were also employed independetly and there were separate muster rolls of each unit. There was no rule or condition regarding the intertr-ansferability of the workmen. On finding that the workmen of one of the units were willfully slacking their work and that there were growing indiscipline among them, the firm decided to close down the unit. Closure compensation was offered to the entire staff of the unit. Industrial disputes were raised by the workmen, who claimed that there was not a bonafide closure and that Section 25-G was attracted as the two units had functional integrality and work for all purposes as one establishment. The Apex Court held that it was a case of bonafide closure of an independent unit of business to which Section 25-G had no application. It was further held that the fact that the provident fund accounts of the employees and the employees State Insurance Accounts of the two units had common members with the authorities concerned and settlements containing similar terms had been entered into between the management and the workman of the two units were not sufficient to hold that the two units were one and the same notwithstanding the fact that the nature of the business carried on in them was same. 28. In the instant case, the petitioner has filed copies of his PF declaration and nomination A/c No. 50507 (Annex. 19) and the PF ledger for the year ending 31.03.1990 of his PF Account (Annex. 17). 28. In the instant case, the petitioner has filed copies of his PF declaration and nomination A/c No. 50507 (Annex. 19) and the PF ledger for the year ending 31.03.1990 of his PF Account (Annex. 17). The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since in the PF account, petitioners staff number is mentioned as 50507, it stands well proved that the number of employees under the I.T.I.L. with its constituent I & M Unit, Jodhpur exceeded 100 persons and, therefore, it was necessary for the management to have complied with the provisions of Section 25-N of the Act before closing down the said I & M Unit and since the conditions precedent were not complied with, the retrenchment of the petitioner was illegal in view of subsection (7) of Sec. 25-N of the Act. This argument is apparently devoid of any force or substance. Firstly, the Turn Key Project undertaken by the I & M Unit, Jodhpur had no functional integrality with the I.T I.L. secordly, it was an independent unit of ITIL., which undertook certain civil works for installation of micro-wave stations. Thirdly, the petitioner has not filed any list of the employees. which were under the employment of the respondent No. 4 in the I & M Unit, Jodhpur in the preceding 12 months from the. date of his retrenchment i.e. March, 1991. It has been vaguely pleaded by the petitioner that under the employment of respondent No 4 more than 150 employees were working at Jodhpur Circle, Bikaner Circle Hisar Circle, Bhatinda Circle and Jammu Circle but no details thereof have been given. The respondents have categorically denied this fact and candidly pleaded that provisions of Sec, 25-N do not apply in view of the specific provisions of Section 25-K. Therefore, in absence of relevant data and reliable evidence, the petitioner has miserably failed to prove that under the I & M Unit, Jodhpur on an average per working day 100 or more persons were employed during the preceding 12 months of his impugned retrenchment. The employees of the ITIL cannot be included for computing the number of persons working under the I & M Unit, Jodhpur for the purpose of Section 25-K of the Act. 29. The employees of the ITIL cannot be included for computing the number of persons working under the I & M Unit, Jodhpur for the purpose of Section 25-K of the Act. 29. The petitioner was appointed as Supervisor (Civil) for installation work to be undertaken in Rajasthan against a Turn Key Project and the job involved supervision of civil works like construction of building, tower foundation, sanitary and road work for micro-wave stations. The petitioner was appointed for the I and M Unit at Jodhpur on purely temporary and contract basis and he was liable to be posted anywhere in Rajasthan State. It stands well proved from the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents that the civil work in the Turn Key Project undertaken by the I and M Unit, Jodhpur has been completed and that the office of Chief Engineer 1 and M Unit, Jodhpur has also been closed w.e.f. 31-8-91. Therefore, the closure of the I and M Unit is genuine, bonafide and real and it is not a mere pretence or ruse. Annexures 10 and 11 filed by the petitioner do not prove that the civil work undertaken by the Turn Key Project is still in progress or has not been completed. Therefore, petitioners case clearly falls under Sec. 25-FFF (2) of the Act and he is only entitled to notice and compensation under Sec 25-F of the Act. Please see Rajisthan Small Scale Industries Employees Union Vs. State of Rajasthan (4). 30. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the provisions of Section 25-N of the Act, which lay down the conditions precedent of retrenchment of workman cannot be pressed into service in this case. I, therefore, hold that it was not necessary for the respondents to have sought prior permission of the appropriate. Government or specified authority for closure or to have given three months notice in writing to the petitioner indicating the reasons for retrenchment. 31. The next limb of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents did not issue any seniority list under Rule 77 of the Rajasthan Industrial Dispute Rules, 1958; that Devi Lal, Supervisor, (Electrical), who was appointed on 30-4-89 and was thus junior to the petitioner was retained while the petitioner was retrenched and as such there was a violation of the mandatory provisions of Sec. 25-G of the Act. I am not impressed by this argument] Sec. 25-G lays down that where any workmen in an industrial establishment is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workman in that establishment in absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman, who was the last person to be employed in that category unless for reasons to be recorded, the employer retrenches any other workman. Sec. 25-G thus embodies the golden rule of industrial law relating to retrenchment namely, "list come first go" where other things are equal. This rule has been recognised for long and upholds a healthy safeguard against discrimination but in the case in hand, the petitioner has nowhere pleaded that under the I & M, Unit, Jodhpur besides him any other person was appointed as Supervisor (Civil). Therefore, there was no question of preparing a seniority list under Rule 77 of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 because in petitioners category, there was no other person Apparently, Devi Lal was a Technical Supervisor (Electrical), which is a different category. Technical Supervisor (Civil) cannot be equated with Technical Supervisor (Electrical) and as such there are two different categories. 32. The petitioner his relied on Gyan Chand Vs. Union of India (5), In that case, the workman was employed as a work-charge Mistri and was later on promoted as Supervisor ( Office and Material) in the Bhakhra Dan Administration. After the completion and winding up of the project, some employees , were to be discharged and an offer was made by the Byas Project Administration to absorb such employees. The workman, therefore, resigned his job under the Bhakhra Administration and accepted the offer of the Byas Project Administration and he was given appointment as Supervisor (Office and Material Section). Later on, he was discharged from service while a person junior to him working as Supervisor in Lubrication and Servicing Section was retained. The Punjab High Court held that the post of Supervisor (Office and Material) and the post of Supervisor (Lubrication and Servicing) formed the same category because no training of any sort was required to acquire a particular skill to become eligible or to be competent to act as a Supervisor in Lubrication and Servicing Section. The Punjab High Court held that the post of Supervisor (Office and Material) and the post of Supervisor (Lubrication and Servicing) formed the same category because no training of any sort was required to acquire a particular skill to become eligible or to be competent to act as a Supervisor in Lubrication and Servicing Section. It was also held that a Supervisor in Lubrication and Servicing Section can efficiently work as a Supervisor in the office and material section and that there was violation of Sec. 25-G. But apparently such are not the facts of the case in hand, because the basic qualifications for Supervisor (Civil) and Supervisor (Electrical) are entirely different. Similarly, their jobs and duties are strikingly separate. Therefore, this case does not help the petitioner and it can not be held that Technical Supervisor (Civil) and Technical Supervisor (Electrical, form the same category. 33. It is true that one Shri P.S. Seth was appointed on 26-10-91 on the post of Technical Supervisor (Civil) at Chandimangal but the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in their sur-rejoinder have categorically asserted that Shri Seth was appointed for a very short and emergent requirement of supervising some road work, which was completed and that Shri P.S. Seth has also been removed from service w.e.f. 31-12-91. This fact has not been refuted by the petitioners. It is worthwhile to note that in pursuance to this Courts ad interim order dated 2-8-91, the petitioner is still continuing in service. Therefore, by the appointment of Shri Pratap Seth as Technical Supervisor (Civil) for the period from 26-10-91 to 31-12-91, it cannot be held that the retrenchment of the petitioner was in violation of Section 25-G of the Act and the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner on this count is not tenable. 34. Shri Joshi has submitted that the impugned retrenchment order Annexure-6 is also illegal and in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 25-F because one months notice pay, and the retrenchment compensation as mentioned therein were neither tendered nor paid to the petitioner on 30-3-91 and that no notice in the prescribed manner was also served on the appropriate Govt. and, therefore, the petitioners retrenchment is per se illegal and void ab initio. The respondents have filed the original termination dated 26-3-91 (Annex. 6) bank drafts etc. along with the envelope of registered A.D. letter, which were sent to the petitioner. and, therefore, the petitioners retrenchment is per se illegal and void ab initio. The respondents have filed the original termination dated 26-3-91 (Annex. 6) bank drafts etc. along with the envelope of registered A.D. letter, which were sent to the petitioner. A perusal of Annexures 5 & 6 firmly establishes that the respondent No. 4 by his letter dated 26.3.91 had sent the impugned termination order Annex. 6 as well as another letter Annexure-5 and pay order Nos. 45-262 and 44-369 dated 28-2-91 and 26-3-91 drawn on State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Branch, Jodhpur for an amount of Rs. 6750/-which included Rs. 1503/-by way of wages for one month in lieu of one months notice and Rs. 2250/- representing retrenchment compensation being equivalent to 15 days average pay for completed year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months being 45 days salary and Rs. 3000/- as arrears of petitioners salary till 31-3-91. The respondents had also sent the notice of retrenchment dated 26-3-91 (Annex. 7) under Rule 76 to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi. The respondents had sent Annexures 5, 6 and 7 on 26-3-91 to the petitioner through registered post A.D. on his home address. A perusal of the original cover of the registered letter further reveals that the postman went to the house of the petitioner from 27th to 31.03.1991 and thereafter from 1st April to 4.04.1991 on each day, but the petitioner was not found at his house. The petitioner was also given the copies of Annexures 5, 6 and 7 on on 33.3.91 when he reported on duty. Therefore, it stands well established that one months notice pay and requisite retrenchment compensation was offered and tendered to the petitioner in accordance with law. 35. In Delhi Transpart Undertaking vs. Industrial Tribunal(6) the Apex Court has elaborated that the law does not mean that the wages for one month should have been actually paid to the workman because in many cases the employer could only tender the amount before the dismissal but could not force the employee to receive the payment before the dismissal becomes effective. This principle applies to retrenchment cases under Section 25-F of the Act as well. 36. In National Iron and Steel Company Limited Vs. This principle applies to retrenchment cases under Section 25-F of the Act as well. 36. In National Iron and Steel Company Limited Vs. Third Industrial Tribunal (7) it has been observed that an unconditional offer or tender of payment preceding retrenchment may be equivalent to payment. 37. In Rajasthan Canal Project Vs. Rajasthan Canal Rastriya Majdoor Union (8), this court has held that mere readiness on the part of the employer to make the payment of the retrenchment compensation is not sufficient and there must be either an offer or tender or actual payment to the workman concerned. Thus, an offer or tender made to the workman personally or by a postal money order or by Bank Draft or any other well recognised media is a valid offer or tender as required under Sec. 25-F (b) of the Act. In the present case, the requisite amount through bank drafts drawn on SBBJ, Branch Jodhpur was sent to the petitioner along with the retrenchment order by registered post on 26-3-91 and the Postman had gone to the house of the petitioner from 27-3-91 to 4-4-91 regularly on each day but the petitioner avoided taking delivery of the said letter and the Bank Draft. Even on 30-3-91 when he joined his duties, respondent No. 4 had supplied him with the copies of Annexures 5, 6 and 7 and asked him to take the said payment, but the petitioner avoided taking the delivery of the registered letter containing Bank Drafts. In such circumstances, it is manifest that the petitioner was offered the requisite amount of notice pay and retrenchment compensation as required under Sec. 25-F but he avoided to take the same. Therefore, now it lies ill in the month of the petitioner to allege that notice pay and the retrenchment compensation were not paid to him under Section 25-F (b) of the Act. The petitioner has cited Shambhu Dayal vs. RSRTC (9) and S.S. Rathore Vs. Raj Rajya Pustak Prakashan Mandal (10) but the facts of those cases are clearly distinguishable. Therefore, in my considered opinion, there is no violation or contravention of the provisions of Sec. 25-FFF (2) read with Section 25-F of the Act in this case. 38. Shri Joshi has lastly argued that since the petitioner had filed two writ petitions, the management got annoyed with him and as such it was a case of victimisation. Therefore, in my considered opinion, there is no violation or contravention of the provisions of Sec. 25-FFF (2) read with Section 25-F of the Act in this case. 38. Shri Joshi has lastly argued that since the petitioner had filed two writ petitions, the management got annoyed with him and as such it was a case of victimisation. Suffice it to say that the work under taken by the I & M Unit, Jodhpur has already been completed and the office of the respondent No. 4 has also been closed w.ef. 31-8-91. Even in the appointment letters of the petitioner, it was clearly mentioned that his services were liable to be terminated on the completion of the Turn Key Project. Therefore, it is not at all a case of victimisation or unfair labour practice. 39. Shri Joshi then cited Ramu Ram Vs. Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. (11) wherein it has been held that right to live includes rights to employment for the purpose of fighting with starvation and that a person appointed on daily wages under the guaranteed programmes or Minimum Needs Programme of the State and who has even not completed 240 days of service, cannot be retrenched. It may be mentioned here that the Honble Supreme Court in Delhi Development Horticultural Employees Union Vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi (12) while interpreting Articles 30 and 41 of the Constitution of India, have held that the directive principle under Article 41 ensuring right to work is qualified by limit economic capacity and development. The Apex Court has further held that persons employed under the Rural Landless Labour Employment Guarantee Programme or under Minimum Employment Guarantee Programme or under the Jawahar Lal Nehru Rajgar Yojna, cannot claim regularisation merely because they have put in more than 240 days services. Therefore, the principle of law laid down in Ramu Rams case (Supra) has been jettisoned and in view of the aforementioned latest pronouncement of the Apex Court, it does not remain a good law. 40. Shri Joshi has then cited the case of Dr. V.N. Chandra vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences (13), therein the Supreme Court had directed the AH India Institute of Medical Scieoces to frame a Scheme for carrying on research in a continuous way to improve medical knowledge for keeping up the tempo of research and to give project wise appointment of Researchers only in special cases. V.N. Chandra vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences (13), therein the Supreme Court had directed the AH India Institute of Medical Scieoces to frame a Scheme for carrying on research in a continuous way to improve medical knowledge for keeping up the tempo of research and to give project wise appointment of Researchers only in special cases. Clearly, the facts of this case are distinguishable and it has no bearing or relevance with the facts of the case in hand. 41. Shri Joshi, the learned council for the petitioner, has also relied on G. Govinda Rajulu Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Construction Corporation Limited (14). In that case, service of employees of Andhra Pradesh State Construction Corporation Limited were terminated under Sec. 25-FFF of the Act on account of the closure of the Corporation. The facts of the case have not been given in the judgment. The Apex Court directed to continue those employees on same terms and conditions either in the Government Departments or in Government Corporations As per pleadings of the respondents, there is no subsisting requirement of a Technical Supervisor (Civil). Therefore, the respondents cannot be directed to continue the services of the petitioner, when there is no subsisting requirement. 42. The up shot of the above discussion is that this writ petition is merit less and the same is hereby dismissed. However, it is directed that if in future any post of Technical Supervisor (Civil) or of similar nature falls vacant in the Indian Telephone Industries Limited or in any Turn Key Project to be undertaken by it then petitioners case may be considered keeping in consideration his experience and he may be given preferential treatment in accordance with law. No order as to costs.