JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. A challenge has been laid by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the "workman" for the sake of convenience) to the Award dated 29.9.2008 rendered by the learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla in Reference No. 285 of 2001. 2. Pertinent facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the workman was engaged as Chowkidar in the month of September 1994 by respondent No. 2 (hereafter referred to as the "employer for the sake of convenience). He worked upto 31.3.2000, on which date, his services were terminated without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act for the sake of convenience). The petitioner raised industrial dispute and the State Government made the following reference to the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal:- Whether the termination of services of Shri Geeta Ram, s/o Shri Jagan Nath w.e.f. 1.3.2000 by the Divisional Forest Officer (Wildlife), Khalini, Shimla-2 without compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief of service benefits, wages, seniority and amount of compensation Shri Geeta Ram is entitled to? 3. The workman filed statement of claim before the learned Labour Court, to which the reply was filed by the employer. The learned Labour Court rejected the petition on 29.9.2008. Hence, this petition. 4. Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, learned Advocate, has vehemently argued that the learned Labour Court has erred in law by coming to the conclusion that the workman was engaged against the project. He then contended that the workman was never apprised that he was appointed in a particular project. He further contended that the workman was never issued any show-cause notice before his retrenchment. According to him, there is non-compliance of Section 25-FFF of the Act. 5. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General supported the impugned award dated 29.9.2008. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned award carefully. 7. The workman appeared as PW1. He was appointed as Chowkidar in the month of September 1994. He worked in the same capacity till 31.3.2000. He was not paid any compensation nor any written termination order was issued to him. He was working in the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Khallini. His work was also appreciated by the employer. 7. The workman appeared as PW1. He was appointed as Chowkidar in the month of September 1994. He worked in the same capacity till 31.3.2000. He was not paid any compensation nor any written termination order was issued to him. He was working in the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Khallini. His work was also appreciated by the employer. He further deposed that persons, namely, Bhagat Ram, Bhagat Singh, Ginider Singh etc., juniors to him, were still working. He was beaten up by the Office Superintendent and thereafter, his services were terminated. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he was appointed as Chowkidar in ECO (NORAD) Project, Unit-1. He also denied the suggestion that he was given duty of watch and ward in the park at Khalini. According to him, his attendance was marked in the office of Range Officer, Wild Life. 8. RW1, Susheel Sharma, Superintendent, DFO, Wild Life, Shimla, deposed that the workman was engaged in a park at Khallini. The project was central aided and financed by Norway Government. The project was completed in 2000. The services of the workman were engaged for the project. He further deposed that as per record, the workman was engaged as watch and ward. The workman was never engaged as Chowkidar in Wild Life. The services of Bhagat Singh and Jhinder Singh were terminated by the Department. However, both of them were re-engaged by the orders of this Court and erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. In cross-examination, he categorically admitted that no appointment letter was given to the workman. He also admitted that the Superintendent, posted prior to him, had made the complaint against the workman. All the persons working in ECO (NORAD) Project were removed by the Department. 9. What emerges from the statement made by the workman is that he was never apprised that he was appointed against ECO (NORAD) Project. He continuously worked w.e.f. September 1994 to 31.3.2000. The employer has failed to lead any tangible evidence on record to establish that the workman was issued muster roll against a particular project. The workman was engaged in the office of Range Officer, Wild Life, Khallini. The persons, juniors to him, have been retained, though on the basis of orders passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal and this Court. The workman was engaged in the office of Range Officer, Wild Life, Khallini. The persons, juniors to him, have been retained, though on the basis of orders passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal and this Court. According to the workman, he was beaten up by the office Superintendent and thereafter, his services were terminated. RW1, Susheel Sharma, Superintendent, DFO, Wild Life, Shimla, has admitted that the Superintendent, posted prior to him, had made a complaint against the workman. The dignity of a workman must always be maintained. The approach of the senior officials/officers should be humane towards the workman. The workman as per Annexure R-1 has completed 240 days preceding his retrenchment. It cannot be said on the basis of evidence led by the employer that the workman was engaged against the ECO (NORAD) Project. It is reiterated that he was appointed in the office of Divisional Forest Officer (Wild Life), Khallini and he was permitted to work till 31.3.2000. 10. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to go into the matter under what circumstances termination of services of a workmen engaged in the scheme or project may not amount to retrenchment in case S.M. Nilajkar and Others Vs. Telecom, District Manager, Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 3553 . Their Lordships have held as under: The termination of service of a workman engaged in a scheme or project may not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of sub-clause (bb) subject to the following conditions being satisfied:- (i) that the workman was employed in a project or scheme of temporary duration; (ii) the employment was on a contract, and not as a daily-wager simplicitor, which provided inter alia that the employment shall come to an end on the expiry of the scheme or project; and (iii) the employment came to an end simultaneously with the termination of the scheme or project and consistently with the terms of the contract. (iv) The workman ought to have been apprised or made aware of the above said terms by the employer at the commencement of employment. 11. In the instant case also, the workman has not been put to notice at any stage in writing that his employment was in a project. The petitioner has neither been served any notice nor he has been paid any compensation at the time of his retrenchment. Thus, retrenchment of the workman was void-ab-initio. 12. 11. In the instant case also, the workman has not been put to notice at any stage in writing that his employment was in a project. The petitioner has neither been served any notice nor he has been paid any compensation at the time of his retrenchment. Thus, retrenchment of the workman was void-ab-initio. 12. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned award dated 29.9.2008 is set aside. The retrenchment of the workman is declared void-ab-initio. The workman would be deemed to be in employment of respondent No. 2 with all consequential benefits including continuity in service. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.