JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. : Heard learned counsel for the peti¬tioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. The following dispute was referred to the Presiding Offi¬cer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar by the State Government for adju¬dication; “Whether the action of the Management of Chief Engineer, Transmission Project (GRIDCO) Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Sri Sudhir Chandra Nayak, Sweeper with effect form 15.7.98 is legal and/or justified ? If not, to what relief Sri Nayak is entitled ?” 2. According to the opposite party No.3-workman, he was engaged by the Management of Chief Engineer, Transmission Project (GRIDCO) Bhubaneswar on a monthly consolidated remuneration of Rs.600/- as a Sweeper with effect form 13.3.1994. He was also assigned the duty of Peon. His remuneration was subsequently enhanced to Rs.750/- and thereafter to Rs.12,000/- per month with effect form 23.6.1998. It is further averred that the workman was also allowed roster duty form 9.10.1997 to 12.10.1997 during Durga Puja Holidays and he was also allowed to work against the leave vacancy of one Sri Bhagirathi Patra form 1.3.1998 to 31.5.1998. Thus, according to the workman, he was working contin¬uously form 13.3.1994 to 15.7.1998. 3. The Management in their written statement took a stand that the workman was only engaged on job contract basis to perform part time work. He used to work hardly for two hours. The Management took a decision to entrust the sanitary work to an organization, namely, Sulava Souchalaya. Accordingly, the service of the workman was discontinued. 4. On the basis of the pleadings two issues were framed by the Labour Court. The workman got examined himself as a witness and exhibited one document. Similarly the Management got examined one witness and exhibited one document. The Labour Court after discussing the evidence, both oral and documentary, arrived at a finding that the workman was working under the Management as a Sweeper on monthly remuneration of Rs.600/- which was subsequent¬ly enhanced to Rs.750/- and thereafter to Rs.1200/- per month. Though the Management contended that the nature of work was contractual if failed to produce any contract and/or any document in support of such plea. The only witness examined on behalf of the Management admitted that apart form doing work of sweeper the workman was entrusted to deliver letters. Though the Management contended that the nature of work was contractual if failed to produce any contract and/or any document in support of such plea. The only witness examined on behalf of the Management admitted that apart form doing work of sweeper the workman was entrusted to deliver letters. On the basis of the evidence the Labour Court arrived at a finding that the workman had discharged more than 240 days of continuous service in twelve calendar months preceding the date of refusal of employment and such refusal was arbitrary and amounted to termination of service. In view of the admitted fact that the Management had neither issued any notice for retrenchment nor paid the retrench¬ment compensation or followed any of the mandatory provisions required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court held that the order of termination was unjust, ille¬gal and contrary to law. On the basis of such findings the Labour Court held that the workman was entitled to reinstatement in service with 80% back wages. It was further held that the workman would be entitled to full wages form the date of the award i.e. 26.4.2001. The said award is assailed in this Writ Petition by the Management. 5. Relying upon the money receipts given by the workman while receiving his remuneration, vide Annexure-1 series, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court acted illegally and with material irregularity in arriving at a conclusion that the engagement of the workman was not contractual. According to the petitioner the work of sweeping and cleaning of latrine being contractual one, the Management had taken a policy decision to entrust the said work to Sulava Sou¬chalaya and, as such, the service of the workman was no longer necessary. This aspect was not considered by the Labour Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner further forcefully submit¬ted that as no work was available the direction issued to rein¬state the workman in service was not justified. In support of such contention the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Employers, Management of Central P&D Inst. Ltd. v. Union of India and another reported in 2005 (I) LLJ 552 . In support of such contention the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Employers, Management of Central P&D Inst. Ltd. v. Union of India and another reported in 2005 (I) LLJ 552 . In the said decision the Supreme Court held that in cases of violation of Section 25-F reinstatement of workman is not always mandatory and for good reasons, it cannot be substituted with compensation. 6. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.3-workman, on the other hand, strongly argued that the Labour Court has taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances and the finding of facts arrived at by the Labour Court may not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Consti¬tution of India. Relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of Janaki Ballav Singh v. Management of Central Horticulture Experiment Station reported in 2001 (I) OLR 659 , it is submitted that when the post has not been abolished that cannot be a ground to refuse reinstatement to an employee whose service was termi¬nated without following the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. On the basis of such findings the learned counsel for the opposite parties prayed that this is a fit case where the Writ-Petition should be dismissed in limine. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. I have also perused the documents annexed to the Writ Petition and counter affidavits meticulously. Fact remains the workman was engaged in the year 1994. He worked continuously till 15.7.1998 thus the finding arrived at by the Labour Court that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in twelve calendar months preceding the date of refusal of employment does not suffer form any infirmity and invites no interference. The evidence of the Management witness lends supports to the workman’s case that he was engaged not only for sweeping and cleaning the latrines but also he was entrusted to deliver let¬ters. His remuneration by efflux of time has been enhanced form Rs.600/- to Rs. 1200/-. The evidence adduced by the workman that he had worked even during holidays and was also engaged against leave vacancy has not been repudiated by the Management by adduc¬ing any cogent evidence. His remuneration by efflux of time has been enhanced form Rs.600/- to Rs. 1200/-. The evidence adduced by the workman that he had worked even during holidays and was also engaged against leave vacancy has not been repudiated by the Management by adduc¬ing any cogent evidence. In the aforesaid scenario the action of the Management in retrenching the workman without following the mandatory requirement under Section 25-F of the Act is unjust, illegal and such action cannot be sustained. Consequently the order of termination as has been held by the Labour Court is unjust, illegal and unjustified. Such finding of the Labour Court is also in consonance with the materials produced and the conclu¬sion being a finding of fact the same cannot be interfered with in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. Admittedly the service of the workman has been terminated with effect form 15.7.1998. About eight years have passed in the meanwhile. A scrutiny of the documents available leads an irre¬sistible conclusion that the workman had worked continuously for more than 240 days preceding the date of retrenchment and thus the Provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were to be complied with and the requisite payment could not be denied to him on the ground that he was a daily rated worker. It is not the Manage¬ments case that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were complied with while terminating the services of the workman. Under the aforesaid scenario the action of the Management termi¬nating the services of the workman cannot be upheld and has to be set aside. Be that as it may, the Management had entrusted the work of cleaning to Sulava Souchalaya and the post in which the petition¬er was working is no longer available. That apart the petitioner was retrenched about seven years back. Under the aforesaid cir¬cumstances I am not inclined to direct the Management to rein¬state the workman in service and I direct that a consolidated sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) be paid to the workman in lieu of compensation, back wages as well as reinstatement. The said amount shall be paid within two months, failing which, the Management shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum therein. The Writ Petition is partly allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. Petition partly allowed.