JUDGMENT Pratap Kr. Ray, J. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. Instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed challenging the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta on 20th February, 1997 and published in the Gazette of Calcutta (Part-II), section 3(1I) dated 29th March, 1997 in terms of reference No. 12 of 1994 whereby and whereunder Presiding Officer of the said Tribunal held that the action of the Management of Calcutta Port Trust terminating the service of Sri Asoke Hela, Sweeper working in the office of the Deputy Chief Engineer, River Training Wing with effect from 1st April, 1992, was not justified and thereby held that Sri Hela would be deemed as in continuous service in the post, which he was holding on the date of termination and would be entitled to all the benefits that would be accrued to him as if the order of termination never was passed. The petitioner in this application is the Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta, a Body Corporate, constituted under the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. The facts leading to the writ application are as follows: Major Port Trust Act, 1963 hereinafter referred to, as said Act, govern the activities of the petitioner, which includes the rules and regulations for appointment of staff. Under section 23 of the said Act, the petitioner is required to have prior sanction of schedule of employees as would be necessary for proper maintenance and purpose of his activities. The schedule indicates designation and grades of the employees including their salaries, fees and allowances. Subject to previous sanction of the Central Government, designation and grades of the employees, their salaries, fees and other allowances are fixed. No post could be sanctioned and/ or created without complying with said section. The schedule of the employees covers all employees from the head of the department to the lowest rung of employees in the organization of Calcutta Port Trust including permanent sweeper. In view of embargo under section 23 of the said Act, the petitioner had no power to appoint any permanent employee except appointment of temporary hands on the exigency of service for a specific period under any special or any temporary need and that too for specific terms. In view of embargo under section 23 of the said Act, the petitioner had no power to appoint any permanent employee except appointment of temporary hands on the exigency of service for a specific period under any special or any temporary need and that too for specific terms. For the "comprehensive Project for Improvement of Draft in the River Hooghly" under the River Training Wing, petitioner required services of temporary sweeper and put up requisition to the local Employment Exchange for engagement of a sweeper on the temporary basis for a fixed period of time. After interviewing the candidates as referred to by the Employment Exchange, one Sri Asoke Hela, the respondent No.2 herein, was appointed as a sweeper on 10th April, 1990 for a fixed period of three months. In the appointment letter, terms and conditions were stipulated, providing, inter alia, that the tenure of appointment -would be for three months and service of respondent No.2 would automatically come to an end on and from the date when even prior to said three months tenure, the work or job for which respondent No.2 was engaged would be considered as completed, and that the service would be terminated at any time by 24 hours notice from either side. As per said terms and conditions of the service, respondent No.2 was put off from duties on 10th July, 1990. Subsequently, on 25th August, 1990 he was again employed on the said terms and conditions for a temporary period of two months on contractual basis. On completion of such terms, he was again engaged on 3rd November, 1990 for a further period of two months. Subsequently again by another Appointment Letter for a contractual period of three months under the said terms and conditions, respondent No.2 was appointed in terms of the Appointment Letter dated 11th February, 1992 for a specific period of three months. Prior to completion of such tenure of three months under clause 4 of the conditions of employment as laid down in the said Appointment Letter dated 11th February, 1992, services of respondent No.2 was dispensed with on and from 1st April, 1992 by issuing a letter dated 31st March, 1992. Prior to completion of such tenure of three months under clause 4 of the conditions of employment as laid down in the said Appointment Letter dated 11th February, 1992, services of respondent No.2 was dispensed with on and from 1st April, 1992 by issuing a letter dated 31st March, 1992. The respondent No.3, Haldia-Calcutta post and Dock Sramik Union hereinafter refer to as said union on behalf of the respondent No.2 had taken up the matter alleging illegal termination from service and ultimately under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, dispute was directed to be resolved namely on the issue whether such termination was justified or not and for necessary relief if it was not justified. Respondent No.2 filed an application before the respondent No.1, the Tribunal, on different allegations and a written statement was filed denying those allegations. Respondent No.2 prayed for a declaration of permanent status in the service, which was objected to by the petitioner by contending, inter alia, that for specific periods and for a particular job when on contractual basis, the Appointment Letter was issued and when such job came to an end with effect from 30th June, 1992, there was no question of passing any order of reinstatement in service as the project was not at all existing and there was no post. It was the specific case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that under section 2(oo)(bb) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter refer to as I.D. Act), it was not a case of retrenchment, since the workman's service was terminated under clause 4 of the Appointment Letter, which provides service of 24 hours notice. It was further submitted that section 25F of I.D. Act had no applicability. Before the Tribunal, workman and an employee of the petitioner were examined. On adjudication of the matter, the Tribunal wrongly decided the issue by holding that the termination was attracted under section 25F of the said Act without considering the aspect of section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D. Act. Tribunal passed an award, which is under challenge in this writ application. 2. Before the Tribunal, workman and an employee of the petitioner were examined. On adjudication of the matter, the Tribunal wrongly decided the issue by holding that the termination was attracted under section 25F of the said Act without considering the aspect of section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D. Act. Tribunal passed an award, which is under challenge in this writ application. 2. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner by referring the appointment letter as annexed in the writ application that there was a specific clause being clause 4 whereby the petitioner was legally entitled to terminate the service by serving 24 hours notice and once it was done, the termination was lawful in terms of the appointment letter and it is attracted by section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D. Act. It is further submitted that learned Tribunal below did not at all consider this aspect of the matter and there is no whisper on that issue. It is submitted that learned Tribunal misdirected itself by considering the reference as a reference for absorption of the petitioner without taking notice of the Limitation of applicability of section 25F in certain contingencies as are stipulated under section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D. Act. It has been further submitted that as best the petitioner could have obtained relief for restoration of service till the period of contractual date and/ or further till the date of completion of the project job. The impugned award accordingly as submitted by them is not legally sustainable as there was a gross error in decision making process. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has referred the decision of Constitution Bench passed in the case Punjab Land Development & Reclamation Corporation Ltd. Chandigarh vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh & Ors., reported in 1990(3) SCC 682 , to contend the purpose and intent of section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D. Act and thereby to submit that the said decision and its conclusion is squarely applicable in this case. Further reference has been made to the judgment passed in the case Madhya Pradesh Hasta Shilpa Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Devendra Kumar Jain & Ors., reported in 1995(1) SCC 638 , wherein a temporary appointee in the Government Company when got order of termination, Apex Court held the same as valid. Further reference has been made to the judgment passed in the case Madhya Pradesh Hasta Shilpa Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Devendra Kumar Jain & Ors., reported in 1995(1) SCC 638 , wherein a temporary appointee in the Government Company when got order of termination, Apex Court held the same as valid. It is submitted that in the said case the only distinguishing feature was the use of the language in the Appointment Letter 'without notice or assigning any reason "whereas in the instant case, there is a specific clause in the letter of appointment "service is terminable on 24 hours notice." 4. The writ application has been opposed by filing affidavit by the concerned workman respondent No.2. It is the case of the respondent No.2 before this court that in view of continuous service for 315 days which is more than 240 days for a year preceding the date of termination 1st April, 1992, the respondent No.2 was eligible for the declaration that he was in continuous service in the post, which was rightly adjudicated by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that though the appointment of the petitioner was in a particular project and that too for a limited period and though such project came to an end on 30th June, 1992, the respondent No.2 was rightly granted benefit for reinstatement in service with all salary, allowances for the said post in question when Tribunal decided that the termination was not justified. 5. Learned Advocate for the respondent workman however, submitted that having regard to the reference which was not challenged, the petitioner in this writ application cannot go into that question to interpret the reference. It is further submitted that since the workman completed one year service and thereby was entitled to be declared as in continuous service, the relief as granted by Tribunal was justified. It is submitted that it was an unfair labour practice by terminating the service of the workman when it is an admitted position that after termination of the workman, another incumbent was appointed in the project job till the project job was completed. 6. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondent workman that section 2(00)(bb) of I.D. Act cannot be restored to in the case of unfair labour practice, reliance has been placed to the judgment passed in the case M.P. Text Book Corp. 6. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondent workman that section 2(00)(bb) of I.D. Act cannot be restored to in the case of unfair labour practice, reliance has been placed to the judgment passed in the case M.P. Text Book Corp. vs. Krishnakant Pancholi, reported in 1998 (80) FLR 54 (Allh.). Reliance has been placed to the judgment passed in the case H.B. Vinobha vs. M.B.Hindusthan Photo Films, reported in 1998 (78) FLR 857 (Mad.), to submit that the termination order did not fulfill the contingencies of section 2(00)(bb) of the said Act. It is further submitted that the said section has no applicability when work continued at the same place even after dispensing service, for which reliance has been placed to the judgment passed in the case Haryana Warehousing Corporation vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Rohtak & Anr., reported in 1998(2) LLJ 505 . Termination would be illegal if the management misuse the power of appointment for a fixed period, is also the submission of the learned Advocate upon relying following judgments passed in the case State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Rameshwar Lal Gahlot, reported in 1996(1) LLJ 888 , Dilip Hanumant Rao Shirke & Ors. vs. Zilla Parishad Yavatmal & Ors., reported in 1990 Lab I.C. 100, Jaya Bharat Printers and Publishers Private Ltd. vs. Labour Court, Kozhilwde & Anr., reported in 1993 (67) FLR 757, Municipal Committee Gonvindagarh vs. Labour Court, Patiala, reported in 1994 (69) FLR 1002.It is submitted that for wrongful termination relief of reinstatement with full back wages is the law upon having reliance to the judgment passed in the case Vikramaditya Pandey vs. Industrial Tribunal & Anr., reported in AIR 2001 SC 672 . It is further submitted that concept of service jurisprudence has no applicability in the industrial law , reliance has been placed to the judgment passed in the case Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs. Ashok Karikui & Ors., reported in 1999(1) LLJ 89 . Finally it is submitted that the section 2(00)(bb) of LD. Act has no applicability for unscrupulous employers. Reliance has been made to the judgment passed in the case Alexander Jesudas vs. Perfect Oil Seals, reported in 1995(70) FLR 1086(Bom.). 7. Finally it is submitted that the section 2(00)(bb) of LD. Act has no applicability for unscrupulous employers. Reliance has been made to the judgment passed in the case Alexander Jesudas vs. Perfect Oil Seals, reported in 1995(70) FLR 1086(Bom.). 7. In reply, petitioner answered by submitting that the judgment as referred to the case State of Rajasthan (supra) is in favour of the Port Trust since in the said judgment back wage was denied. On issue of mala fide exercise of the power and colourable exercise of the power as alleged and the decisions to that effect a& relied upon by learned Advocate for the respondent workman, same has been -distinguished by submitting that there is no case of mala fide in the instant case, save and except some mild allegations without any proper foundation which will not help the workman. Accordingly it is submitted that the judgment of M.P. Text Book Corp. (supra) and of HB. Vinobha (supra) have no applicability. The judgment of Haryana Warehousing Corporation (supra) and the judgment Vikramaditya Pandey (supra) have been distinguished by submitting that there the job was not for a specific period and the fact and circumstances therein were completely different. Judgment of Bombay High Court in the case Dilip Hanumant Rao Shirke (supra) has been distinguished by submitting that here the petitioner has challenged the decision making process since section 2(00)(bb) of the I.D. Act was not at all considered. The judgment as referred to Jaya Bharat Printers and Publishers Private Ltd. (supra) has been distinguished on the issue that here the workman never at any point of time was in continuous service. Other judgments also have been distinguished. 8. Having regard to the respective submissions of the parties, the only short question involved in the matter, on the admitted facts, as 10 whether the decision making process as culminated to the impugned award is valid and legal. On the submissions of both the parties and the respective documents as filed before this court, the following facts are admitted: (a) With effect from 1st April, 1991 to 1st April, 1992 the date of termination of service, respondent No.2 worked on diverse dates by means of different Appointment Letters as issued stipulating the period of service namely sometimes three months, sometimes two months and thereby worked for a total period of 315 days. (b) In the Appointment Letter as issued in favour of the respondent No.2 and the terms and conditions mentioned therein as agreed upon by the respondent No.2, there were categorical mentioning that the job was under a project and for a specified period with temporary status. (c) Under the terms and conditions of service, a stipulation was made in the Appointment Letter itself under clause 4 that by notice of 24 hours, the service could be terminated at any time. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid admitted facts, the reference to be looked into. Under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as I.D. Act, reference for resolving the dispute was to this effect: THE SCHEDULE "Whether the action of the management of Calcutta Port Trust in terminating the services of Shri Ashoke Hela, ex-sweeper, Deputy Chief Engineer, River Training Wing, Calcutta Port Trust w.e.r. 1/4/92 was justified or not? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?" 10. Respondent No.2 has submitted different judgments to contend that the respondent No.2 was eligible to be absorbed permanently in a post with all arrear service benefits in view of his continuous service for one year and in view of the basic illegality in the order of termination which directly hit section 25F of LD. Act. For adjudication of this issue, the reference qua the concerned Major Port Trust Act, which is applicable in respect of the organization of the petitioner and the award is to be considered in depth. 11. It is an admitted position that the petitioner, the Calcutta Port Trust is controlled and guided in respect of his all activities under the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. Section 23 of said Act is the relevant provision, which control the sanction and creation of the posts, its nature and character, grade and salaries etc. providing, inter alia, rule of prior sanction of the Central Government and its approval. Section 23 of the said Act reads as follows: "23. Section 23 of said Act is the relevant provision, which control the sanction and creation of the posts, its nature and character, grade and salaries etc. providing, inter alia, rule of prior sanction of the Central Government and its approval. Section 23 of the said Act reads as follows: "23. Schedule of Board's staff.- A Board shall, from time to time, prepare and sanction a schedule of the employees of the Board whom it deems necessary and proper to maintain for the purposes of this Act and such Schedule shall indicate therein the designations and grades of employees and the salaries, fees and allowances which are proposed to be paid to them: Provided that the previous sanction of the Central Government shall be obtained for the inclusion in the said Schedule of those designations and grades of employees and the salaries, fees and allowances payable to them which the Central Government may, by order, specify, and where no such order is made, of such posts (including the salaries and allowances attached thereto) which are required to be created by the Central Government, or for the creation of which the previous sanction of the Central Government is required, under this Act." 12. It is an admitted position in this case that under section 23 of the said Act, the post wherein respondent No.2 was appointed, was not at all a sanctioned post of the Central Government. It is also an admitted fact that for exigency of the work of a particular project, the respondent No.2 was appointed and such project came to an end on 30th June, 1992. The dispute cropped up in view of termination of service of Sri Hela prior to completion of three months period in terms of the Appointment Letter No. RI/EST/G/933 dated 11th February, 1992, which is annexe in the writ application as Annexure 'c'. The Appointment Letter dated 11th February, 1992 reads as follows: "APPOINTMENT LETTER Name: Shri Ashok Hela, Sio Late B. Hela Address: 30, Dolu Sarkar Lane, Calcutta-23. Re: Temporary Appointment as a Sweeper Under River Training Wing. Nature of appointment purely temporary for three months from the date of appointment Scale of pay Rs. 1040-20-1200-25-1425/- Rate of pay mention Rs. 1040=00 p.m. plus all other allowances admissible under the Rules. 1. Re: Temporary Appointment as a Sweeper Under River Training Wing. Nature of appointment purely temporary for three months from the date of appointment Scale of pay Rs. 1040-20-1200-25-1425/- Rate of pay mention Rs. 1040=00 p.m. plus all other allowances admissible under the Rules. 1. I am directed to offer you a purely temporary post on the scale and rate of pay specified above plus usual cost of living allowance sanctioned by the Trustees from time to time. Subject to your obtaining a fit certificate of health from the Trustees Chief Medical Officer and production of satisfactory proof in support of your age such as Matriculation Certificate etc. Your appointment is also subject to your character, antecedents and Indian nationality being verified by the Civil authorities in accordance with the rules in force from time to time and found to be satisfactory. 2. It must be distinctly understood that your service will automatically come to an end on and from the date. If the undersigned considers that the particular work or job for which you are being engaged has been completed, In whose place you may be employed/completion of the specific job viz. expiration of the specific time for which you may be engaged. 3. Your service will also came automatically to an end the trustees considering you to be physically or mentally incapable of doing your work on your dismissal for acts considered by the Trustees to amount to misconduct. 4. Without prejudice to the above your service is terminable on 24 hours notice from either side. 5. You will bound by each and all the Trustees rules whether now existing or to be framed hereafter from time to time for regulating recruitment, promotion, conduct discipline; punishment and any other matter relating to the terms and conditions of service applicable to the employees of the Trustees of allotment of premises to them or their rights and their privileges either covered or not covered by any of the following clauses viz. clauses (a) to (b) of section 31(1) of the Calcutta Port Act. Bengal Act. III of 1890. 6. You will be held responsible for the charge and care of the Trustees money, goods and stores and all other......... That may be entrusted to you will be accountable for the same. 7. clauses (a) to (b) of section 31(1) of the Calcutta Port Act. Bengal Act. III of 1890. 6. You will be held responsible for the charge and care of the Trustees money, goods and stores and all other......... That may be entrusted to you will be accountable for the same. 7. You must be prepared to work any where on the Trustees system and you would be liable to be transferred from one point to another. It may also be noted that you will be appointed in connection with the River Training Works and you may be posted at any site where River Training Works are being executed. 8. If you are prepared to take up the appointment on those conditions please signify your acceptance by returning this form duly signed by you in the presence of two responsible persons. A duplicate copy is enclosed for your records. In the event of your acceptance please call at this office by the 11th February, 1992 at the latest failing which this offer will stand lapsed and will not be renewed. 9. No travelling allowances will be granted for joining the post. (Chief Engineer) Head of Department l) Have understood the above and accept the offer on the terms and conditions specified therein. 2) I authorize to deduct from my dues from the Trustees' on any account whatsoever or whatever amount is recoverable or payable by me to the Trustees and the balance may be paid to me. Signature of the candidate Or thumb impression, if Illiterate Date 4/2/92 Signature in the presence. 1. Name: Designation: Address Date: Signature 2. Name: Designation: Address Date: Signature In case of persons not capable of reading and understanding English this should be explained to the candidate by responsible person who should endorse as follows: Explained by me to Name: Designation: Address Date :" 13. Such Appointment Letter was accepted by the respondent No.2. From the Appointment Letter it appears that the nature of the appointment was temporary appointment under River Training Wing with specific condition under clause 2 that the Appointment would automatically come to an end when the particular work/job for which the respondent No.2 was engaged would be completed, even if the same was prior to the tenure of three months for which respondent No.2 was appointed. Under clause 4 of the said Appointment Letter it was agreed upon by the parties that service of 24 hours notice would be enough to terminate the service from either side. The reference No. 12/94, which became the subject matter of adjudication by the Tribunal was directed to be adjudicated on specific points namely whether the termination with effect from 1st April, 1992 was justified. 14. From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, Tribunal never was directed to decide the issue about permanent and/or temporary absorption of respondent No.2 in the concerned post, which was a post under a project job for a limited period. In the impugned award, it appears that the Tribunal decided the question otherwise by considering the reference as a reference for adjudication of permanent absorption of the respondent No.2 in a post, which already was abolished and that too a post, which was under a time bound project. Before the Tribunal it was admitted by both the parties by producing respective evidence that the project for which the respondent No.2 was appointed came to an end on 30th June, 1992. Hence, it is clear that after 30th June, 1992 there was no such post in which the respondent No.2 could be re-appointed. The learned Tribunal in his award when declared that the respondent No.2 was in continuous service in the post and thereby became eligible to have all the benefits, did not consider this aspect that the project came to an end on 30th June, 1992 and there was no existence of the post which respondent No.2 was holding as on 151 April, 1992. Once it was proved by evidence and admitted by both the parties that the respondent No.2 was appointed solely in a project job and such project came to an end on 30th June, 1992 and thereby there was no existence of any post, the impugned award declaring the holding of the said post by workman continuously for all purposes was absolutely a wrong decision. 15. The judgment as referred to by the learned Advocate for the workman on issue of absorption in service are distinguishable in nature. In all the cases as referred to, therein court first held that job was perennial in nature and as such relief was granted. 15. The judgment as referred to by the learned Advocate for the workman on issue of absorption in service are distinguishable in nature. In all the cases as referred to, therein court first held that job was perennial in nature and as such relief was granted. Furthermore in all those cases, the issue on applicability of section 2(00)(bb) of I.D. Act to justify termination 24 hours notice was not raised and decided. Hence, those judgments have no applicability in the instant case. 16. Having regard to such settled legal position and having regard to the section 23 of the Major Port Trust Act, since, it is abundantly clear that the respondent No.2 was holding a post which was not only a temporary in nature but also under a project and such post was not at all sanctioned and approved by the Central Government in terms of section 23 of the Major Port Trust Act, there was no question of declaring the respondent No.2 as in continuous service in the said post on the date of the award which was passed on 20th February, 1997 and thereby to grant all reliefs and service benefits without adjudicating the core issue on applicability of section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D. Act. 17. Furthermore, on scanning the award, it appears that the Tribunal did not at all consider section 2(00)(bb) of I.D. Act though it was a positive case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that in terms of clause 4 of the Appointment Letter, which provides 24 hours notice of either side, the service was terminated. In the impugned award, there is no whisper about adjudication of the matter in the said angle and thereby Tribunal misguided itself by holding that the termination was contrary of section 25F of the I.D. Act. Section 25F of said Act is contoured by section 2(00)(bb) of the said Act. In the instant case there is no decision to that effect while Tribunal held that there was a breach of section 25F of I.D. Act. From the award it appears that the Tribunal misguided itself and prompted to declare an appointee under a project as a permanent appointee of the organization in view of successive appointment in a year in such project job by the petitioner without adjudicating the main issue whether it was a case of retrenchment applying section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D. Act. From the award it appears that the Tribunal misguided itself and prompted to declare an appointee under a project as a permanent appointee of the organization in view of successive appointment in a year in such project job by the petitioner without adjudicating the main issue whether it was a case of retrenchment applying section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D. Act. The Tribunal did not consider the settled legal position namely the basic difference in between appointee under a particular project qua the appointee in a perennial job in the nature of temporary appointment. By the reference under section 10 of the said Act the question of absorption in a permanent post created under section 23 of the Major Port Trust Act was not directed to be considered, hence, the decision making process of impugned award was absolutely illegal and the same was against the basic settled law of the Apex Court. It is an admitted fact that only those temporary appointees in such project who were brought from other departments got the benefit of continuity in service in other places. The Tribunal had the jurisdiction to decide the only question whether under clause 4 of the letter of termination, the termination was justified by adjudicating the issue on "hire and fire principle" to destroy the termination order as was issued by the petitioner terminating the service of respondent No.2 by giving 24 hours notice. The Tribunal on the admitted fads namely that after the termination of the respondent No.2, other person was engaged on daily rated basis to perform the job till the project was completed on 30th .June, 1992, could have granted the benefit if any on adjudicating the matter that the termination with effect from 1st April, 1992 prior to completion of three months period and also prior to completion of project job on 30th June, 1992, as the case may be, was bad and illegal and accordingly same was not justified. 18. It is the case, where court finds that there is no adjudication of the issue namely applicability of section 2(00)(bb) of I.D. Act on the reflection of the appointment letter and clause 4 of such. 19. 18. It is the case, where court finds that there is no adjudication of the issue namely applicability of section 2(00)(bb) of I.D. Act on the reflection of the appointment letter and clause 4 of such. 19. On deciding the said point, Tribunal could have also answered the issue about the relief to the respondent No.2 in the nature of damage/compensation and/or salary and service benefits till the completion of three months periods of service as per Appointment Letter and/or till the project job was completed on 30th June, 1992. The judgments as referred to by the learned Advocate for the workman respondent on issue of the mala fide has no relevancy in the instant case as in terms of the contractual term of appointment in fact there was an order of termination serving 24 hours notice in terms of the clause 4 of the appointment as agreed upon by the parties. Further there was no positive foundation of mala fide either in pleading or in the deposition. Mala fide is a mental phenomenon of a person which required to proved by positive allegation against a person concerned. Mere allegation against any organization is not the test of mala fide. The judgments on the issue namely that the back wages and reinstatement in service is a matter of course on all termination as referred to learned Advocate of work man, has no applicability in the instant case as it relates to the contractual service for a particular project job which admittedly was ended on 30th June, 1992 and issue on applicability of section 2(00)(bb) of I.D. Act, which saves the termination from the clutch of retrenchment was not at all decided by the Tribunal. Other judgments of applicability of section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D. Act as referred to by the learned Advocate for the workman respondent also has no applicability as there is no findings and/or observation and/or decision by the learned Tribunal below on the said issue by deciding the question for which the present writ petition has been filed assailing the award on the major point namely that the learned Tribunal did not at all consider the aspect of contractual appointment in a project job and applicability of section 2(00)(bb) of I.D. Act in terminating the service under clause 4 of the Appointment Letter. Having regard to the aforesaid observation and views as expressed by me, it is a fit case for remand as the decision making process of the Tribunal was absolutely illegal due to non-consideration of relevant issue and consideration of issue contrary to the legal position by not testing the termination under the anvil of section 2(00)(bb) of LD. Act. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and quashed. The matter is remanded back for adjudication before the Tribunal to decide the reference having regard to issue as raised on section 2(00)(bb) of I.D. Act. 20. Interim order as passed by this court earlier is vacated. The writ application is allowed. 21. Urgent xerox certified copy of the order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously. Writ application allowed.