JUDGMENT M.M. DAS, J. : O.J.C. No.14236 of 1996 has been filed by the management challenging the award dated 8.3.1996 passed in I.D. Case No.55 of 1994 by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore, Koraput. O.J.C. No.2262 of 1998 has been filed by the workman-Smt. Alethes Kharin Dhanphul with a prayer to issue a mandamus to implement the award. 2.As both the writ petitions are inter-linked, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3.The opp.party No.1 - workman, Smt. Alethes Kharin Dhanphul in O.J.C. No.14236 of 1996 was appointed as a Junior Typist in the establishment of the Upper Indravati Project, Khatiguda and continued to work in the said post till 10.6.1988 without any break. She was retrenched from the service, while juniors, namely, Shri Niranjan Das and Kailash Chandra Pradhan were allowed to continue in service. The workman alleging that her retrenchment from service on 11.6.1988 was without any reason and without compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, ‘the Act’) and no notice was served by the management on her before retrenching her from service as well as no compensation was paid to her and illegally the management has appointed the above two persons, who were junior to her in service, she raised an industrial dispute. On failure of conciliation and submission of failure report, the State Government made a reference under Section 12 (5) read with Section 10 (1) of the Act, to the Labour Court to the following effect :- “Whether the termination of service of Smt. A.K. Dhanphul, Ex-Junior Grade Typist with effect from 11.6.1988 by way of retrenchment/Discharge/dismissal or otherwise by the Chief Accounts Officer, Upper Indravati Project, Khatiguda, Nowarangpur is legal and/or justified and if not what relief the workman is entitled to ? Statement of claim and written statement were filed by the parties before the Labour Court, who upon considering the rival contentions of the workman as well as the management framed eight issues for adjudication. 4.The case of the management in its written statement was that the workman was appointed as a Junior Typist against the post of Senior Grade Typist from time to time due to exigencies of office work and also due to non-filling of the post of Senior Grade Typist by the Government. 4.The case of the management in its written statement was that the workman was appointed as a Junior Typist against the post of Senior Grade Typist from time to time due to exigencies of office work and also due to non-filling of the post of Senior Grade Typist by the Government. There was clear stipulation in each appointment order to the effect that the appointment was purely temporary and on ad hoc basis and will be automatically terminated on expiry of period of appointment and she will have no right to the post after termination of the period of appointment made in each occasion without assigning any reason thereof. In view of such clear stipulation in her appointment order, the workman has no legitimate right over the post of Junior Typist. It was the further case of the management that the establishment of the management is not an industry as defined under the Act and, as such, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to give relief to the second party-workman as claimed. 5.The issues framed by the learned Labour Court are to the following effect :- (i)Whether the engagement of the workman in the establishment of the first party-management for a short period and termination of her services from time to time is a device to deprive the workman of the benefit of continues service for the statutory period ? (ii)Whether the management has followed the principles of natural justice while terminating the services of the workman ? (iii)Whether the management has followed the principles of last come first go in giving engagement to the employees in the establishment of the first party-management ? (iv)Whether the management is required to comply the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, in terminating the service of the workman ? (v)Whether the workman was in service for a period of 240 days proceeding the date of her termination ? (vi)Whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement with a back wages ? (vii)Whether the termination of service of Smt. A.K. Dhanphul Ex-junior Grade typist w.e.f. 11.6.1988 by way of retrenchment/discharge/dismissal or other wise by the Chief accounts Officer, Upper Indravati Project, Khatiguda, Nawrangpur is legal and/or justified ? (viii)To what relief, if any workman is entitled ? 6.It may be mentioned here that as the Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Limited took over the Upper Indravati Project, a Misc. (viii)To what relief, if any workman is entitled ? 6.It may be mentioned here that as the Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Limited took over the Upper Indravati Project, a Misc. Case, being Misc.Case No.576 of 1998, has been filed for allowing the petitioner-management in O.J.C. No.14236 of 1996 to be designated as management of Upper Indravati Hydro Electronic Project (UIHEP) being represented through the Deputy General Manager (Finance) and, further a prayer has been made therein to permit Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd. (in short, ‘the OHPC Ltd.’) to contest the matter as the petitioner. Thus, it appears that the OHPC Ltd. has stepped into the shoes of the petitioner-management as per the prayer made in the said Misc. case and the learned counsel for the OHPC Ltd. was allowed to address the Court during the course of hearing as counsel for the management. 7.The findings of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court in the impugned award on the issues framed, are as follows :- Issue No.1. The workman was given temporary and ad hoc appointment for different periods against a vacant post of Senior Grade Typist which was lying vacant then. So it cannot be said that the engagement of the workman in the establishment of the first party - management was for short period and termination of service from time to time is not a devise to deprive the workman of the benefit of continuous service for the statutory period. Issue Nos.2 and 3 The management has not followed the principles of “last come first go” in giving engagement to the employees in its establishment and, thereby, the management has violated the principle of natural justice in terminating the workman. Issue Nos.4 and 5 From the documents produced by the workman and marked as Exts. H. J. and K, it appears that she has rendered service for only 201 days preceding the date of her retrenchment. Hence, the termination of service of the workman without payment of notice pay and compensation cannot be said to be illegal and unjustified. Issue Nos.6 and 7 The management has committed illegalities by not giving further appointment to the workman after 10.6.1988. In this case, there is no infringement of Section 25F of the Act. Back wages cannot be granted to the workman. Issue Nos.6 and 7 The management has committed illegalities by not giving further appointment to the workman after 10.6.1988. In this case, there is no infringement of Section 25F of the Act. Back wages cannot be granted to the workman. However, when the management has failed to follow the principles of “last come first go” in giving engagement to the employees in the establishment and thereby violated the principles of natural justice, it would be just and proper to direct reinstatement of the workman in the post of Junior Typist. 8.Thus answering the reference, the learned Labour Court held that the termination of service of the workman with effect from 11.06.1988 is illegal and unjustified and she be reinstated to the post of Junior Typist without back wages within three months from the date of receipt of the award by the management. 9.Mr. B.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the management (in O.J.C. No.14236 of 1996) vehemently urged that the appointment of the workman comes under Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act and, hence, the award passed by the learned Labour Court for reinstatement of the workman is illegal and unsustainable. This contention on behalf of the management is countered by Mr. Chhinchani, learned counsel for the workman, who relying upon the decision in the case of Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1357, submitted that in the said decision, the Hon’ble apex Court has clearly laid down that it is settled law that for attracting applicability of Section 25G of the Act, which embodies the rule of “last come first go”, the workman is not required to prove that he had worked for a period of 240 days during 12 calendar months preceding the termination of his service and it is sufficient for him to plead and prove that while effecting retrenchment, the employer violated the rule of “last come first go” without any tangile reason. In the said case, it is seen that the Hon’ble apex Court, by referring to an earlier decision in the case of Central Bank of India v. Satyam, 1996 AIR SCW 3138, laid down in the context of Section 25H of the Act that it is the duty of the employer to give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen to offer themselves for re-employment on a preferential basis. The argument that the offer of re-employment under Section 25H and the rule of “last come first go” would only apply to the workman, who comes under Section 25F, has been negatived by the Hon’ble apex Court, even by interpreting Rules 77 and 78 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. 10.Further in paragraph-15 of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Harjinder Singh (supra), the Hon’ble apex Court, while highlighting the distinction between Sections 25F & 25G of the Act, referred to an earlier decision in the case of Bhogpur Co-op.Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Harmesh Kumar, (2006) AIR SCW 6084, wherein it was held as follows :- “We, are not oblivious of the distinction in regard to the legality of the order of termination in a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies on the one hand, and a situation where Section 25-G thereof applies on the other. Whereas in a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies the workman is bound to prove that he had been in continuous service for 240 days during twelve months preceding the order of termination in a case where he invokes the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H thereof he may not have to establish the said facts. Whereas in a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies the workman is bound to prove that he had been in continuous service for 240 days during twelve months preceding the order of termination in a case where he invokes the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H thereof he may not have to establish the said facts. See: Central Bank of India v. S. Satyam (1996 AIR SCW 3138); Samishta Dube v. City Board, Etawah (1999 AIR SC 694); SBI v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari (2006 AIR SCW 235) and Jaipur Development Authority v. Ram Sahai (2006 AIR SCW 5963)” 11.In paragraph-17 of the said judgment in the case of Harijinder Singh (supra), it was held as follows :- “Before concluding, we consider it necessary to observe that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution in matters like the present one, the High Courts are duty-bound to keep in mind that the Industrial Disputes Act and other similar legislative instruments are social welfare legislations and the same are required to be interpreted keeping in view the goals set out in the preamble of the Constitutions and the provisions contained in Part IV thereof in general and Articles 38, 39(a) to (e), 43 and 43-A in particular, which mandate that the State should secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people, ensure equality between men and women and equitable distribution of material resources of the community to subserve the common good and also ensure that the workers get their dues. More than 41 years ago, Gajendragadkar, J. opined that “the concept of social and economic justice is a living concept of revolutionary import; it gives sustenance to the rule of law and meaning and significance to the ideal of welfare State” - State of Mysore v. Worker of Gold Mines, AIR 1958 SC 923 .” 12.On the perusal of the impugned award and on considering the factual findings of the learned Labour Court, this Court finds that the award passed by the learned Labour Court invoking the principles of “last come first go”, as provided under Sections 25G and 25G of the Act, is well founded and in accordance with the settled position of law. 13.This Court, therefore, finds that O.J.C. No.14236 of 1996 filed by the management challenging the award is devoid of merit as the impugned award deserves no interference by this Court. 14.With regard to O.J.C. No.2262 of 1998, in view of the above conclusion of this Court that the impugned award cannot be interfered with, as this Court finds that the said award has been notified by the State Government under Section 17 of the Act, it is held that the said award is enforceable under Sections 17-A and 18(3) (a) and (c) of the Act and is binding on the management. It is, therefore, directed that the management shall reinstate the workman forthwith with all consequential benefits, failing which, action may be taken under Section 29 of the Act, against the management. 15.In the result, therefore, O.J.C. No.14236 of 1996 is dismissed and O.J.C. No.2262 of 1998 is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. There shall be no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.