R. B. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Ms. Rohma Hameed holding brief of Sri Yashwant Verma learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. R. Gupta learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Sri Ajai Kumar dwivedi. In this petition order dated October 25, 1997 passed by Central Government industrial Tribunal, Kanpur in Industrial dispute Case No. 4 of 1991 has been challenged. ( 2 ) WITH the consent of the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage in view of second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 2 was deployed absolutely on casual basis for a limited period as a messenger from July 30, 1987 to March 9, 1988 by an order dated July 31, 1987 with the condition that such deployment was absolutely on temporary basis and could be ceased after the period of February 13, 1988. Such deployment was made on contractual basis for a limited period in the exigency of work and after coming to an end of the limited period the deployment on contractual basis in terms and conditions of appointment was not renewed. The petitioner had however got the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (in short called act hereinafter) adjudicated before the Tribunal where the dispute of following effect was referred: "whether the action of the management of state Bank of India in terminating the services of ex-messenger Ajai Kumar dwivedi w. e. f. March 10, 1988 is justified? if not, to what relief is the workman entitled?" ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner State Bank of India (in short called bank hereinafter) the respondent No. 2 had worked only for 223 days and has not completed 240 days even as a messenger. After his deployment some other person was kept on deployment which was admitted by the petitioner himself in his letter dated August 5, 1996 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and no person was ever subsequently deployed, therefore, there is no question of retrenchment and applying the principle of last come first go while not renewing the engagement of the petitioner. After his deployment some other person was kept on deployment which was admitted by the petitioner himself in his letter dated August 5, 1996 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and no person was ever subsequently deployed, therefore, there is no question of retrenchment and applying the principle of last come first go while not renewing the engagement of the petitioner. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, learned tribunal in the award dated October 25, 1996 had considered all the aspects while adjudicating the issues before it had noticed that one Sri Rajesh Pandey subsequently deployed was not cross-examined but the petitioner being junior was retrenched. According to the petitioner when the respondent No. 2 has not even completed 240 days in a calendar year then the basic requirement of Section 25-F of act i. e. conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen is not justified, therefore, testing the case in the award in respect of non-applicability of not following the procedure of retrenchment given in Section 25-G of act cannot be tested. ( 6 ) THE relevant provisions of Section 25-F and Section 25-G of act are given as below: "25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen-No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until- (a) the workman has been given one months notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice; (Proviso omitted by act No. 49 of 1984, Section 3 w. e. f. August 18, 1984 ). (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days average pay (for every completed year of continuous service) or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government (or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette ). 25-G. Procedure for retrenchment- Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in his 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. The departure from the last come first go rule is permissible on valid and justifiable grounds and burden is on the management to prove the existence of such grounds. Gradewise classification of workmen will not create different categories so as to exclude operation of Section 25-G in case of retrenchment of some of the workmen falling under a different grade in view of Workmen v. Jorhat Tea Co. Ltd. AIR 1980 SC 1454 : 1980 (3) SCC 406 : 1980-II-LLJ-124. " ( 7 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I find, that respondent No. 2 has not worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and his deployment was made only as a daily wager and daily wager has no right to post and has no right of continuance when his deployment came to an end in terms of the conditions of the appointment. Non-renewal of appointment in consonance to the terms and conditions of appointment is not illegal after a stipulated period and no opportunity of hearing is also necessary to be given to the daily wager. Non-renewal of contractual deployment is not retrenchment or fatal in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Escorts ltd. v. Presiding Officer and another 1997 (11) SCC 521 , which has considered the judgment of M. Venugopal v. Divisional manager, L. I. C. AIR 1994 SC 1343 : 1994 (2) SCC 323 : 1994-I-LLJ-597. The deployment of the respondent No. 2 was only as daily wager and in terms of requirement of his deployment further continuance was not found suitable, where conditions precedent in view of Section 25-F of act is not existing at all then there is no necessity to observe the provisions of Section 25-G of act, therefore, there is no necessity to follow the procedure of retrenchment as the provisions of Section 25-G is not applicable while disengaging the respondent No. 2. In these circumstances, by non- application of mind on the part of the Presiding Officer, learned tribunal, entirely on irrelevant considerations has passed the award, which is not legally sustainable. The award is, therefore, quashed. ( 8 ) THE writ petition is allowed. No, order as to cost. . .