JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. In this group of petitions, separate but similar award dated 20.12.2004 passed by the learned Labour Court in Reference No. 303 of 1989 is brought under challenge. By the impugned award dated 20.12.2004, the learned Labour Court, Vadodara has partly allowed the reference and directed present petitioners to pay lump sum amount at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to each workman concerned in the reference (except one Mr. P.B. Vishwas) in lieu of reinstatement and backwages. 2. So far as the factual background is concerned, broadly stated the facts in case of each workman are almost similar. The case or defence raised by the respondent in respect of the claimants (i.e. the petitioners), is also common and similar. 3. The petitioners claimed before the learned Labour Court that they were working with the respondent Board as Field Attendant. It is also claimed that they worked with the respondent Board for about 18 months to 24 months inasmuch as some of the petitioners were appointed in December 1986, while some others were appointed in January 1987 or July 1987, couple of petitioners were appointed in April 1987 at different field stations. The petitioners - claimants also claimed before the learned Labour Court that their services were illegally, abruptly and arbitrarily terminated w.e.f. 6.1.1989 by the respondent Board by oral order. With such allegations, the petitioners raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the learned Labour Court, Vadodara vide order of reference dated 14.3.1989. The reference was registered as Reference Case No. 303 of 1989. In the said reference, present petitioners filed their statements of claim they alleged that they had worked for 12 consecutive months and for more than 240 days. The petitioners also claimed that they had submitted their applications in November 1986 and they were called for interview on or around 29.11.1986 for the post of Field Assistant and that they were selected and appointed after the process of interview and were appointed on different dates starting from 1.12.1986. The petitioners also claimed that at the relevant time the respondent Board had five field stations in the local limit of Vadodara and one of the field stations operated round the clock, i.e. for 24 hours. The petitioners also claimed in their statements of claim that they were deployed at different field stations. The petitioners also claimed that at the relevant time the respondent Board had five field stations in the local limit of Vadodara and one of the field stations operated round the clock, i.e. for 24 hours. The petitioners also claimed in their statements of claim that they were deployed at different field stations. According to the claim of the petitioners first shift started at 6.00 a.m. and the second shift started at 2.00 p.m. and third shift started at 10.00 p.m. It was also claimed that the field stations were located at Makarpara, IPCL, Race Course, Nyay Mandir, etc. It was also claimed that the equipments for performing their duties, were supplied by the respondent Board. The petitioners also claimed that they were paid salary at the rate of Rs. 20 per day and many a times they were asked to work over time, i.e. they were asked to work continuously in two shifts and they were not considered eligible for any leave or even weekly off. The petitioners also claimed that on 6.1.1989, they were informed by one Mr. Bhatt, Regional Officer that they were relieved from service and he also asked the petitioners to put signature on certain letters which were kept ready by the said officer. They alleged that when they examined the letters they noticed that according to the text of said letters they had voluntarily resigned from service and that, therefore, they refused to sign said letters and that, therefore, they were not allowed to work from the next day when they reported for duty. The petitioners also alleged that subsequently, the petitioners were called for discussion to settle the dispute. The meeting was conducted on 6.2.1989 in presence of Mr. Bhatt, Regional Officer and Mr. Pandya, Assistant Law Officer. According to the petitioners, after discussion it was agreed that the petitioners will be reinstated with effect from 13.2.1989. However, on 13.2.1989 when they reported for duty, they were not allowed to resume duties and Mr. Bhatt, Regional Officer informed that their services are not required. 4. The respondent Board opposed and contested the reference. The Board filed written statement. According to the petitioners, after discussion it was agreed that the petitioners will be reinstated with effect from 13.2.1989. However, on 13.2.1989 when they reported for duty, they were not allowed to resume duties and Mr. Bhatt, Regional Officer informed that their services are not required. 4. The respondent Board opposed and contested the reference. The Board filed written statement. It is pertinent and necessary to mention that though the respondent Board claimed that the petitioners were engaged for the above mentioned project, in the statement of claim, the respondent Board did not mention that the said project work had come to an end at the time when the petitioners were relieved. On examination of the written statement filed by the Board, it has emerged that the Board accepted that the concerned workmen were engaged and employed by it on the post of field attendant, however, the Board claimed that the said engagement of the concerned workmen was on temporary basis and that they were engaged on and for the work of MAAQMP project. The Board also accepted that the concerned workmen were paid salary at Rs. 20 per day. However, what is important is the fact that the Board did not disclose/mention the date on which the work actually came to an end and when the project was actually closed. Though the Board claimed that the project work is closed, the date is not mentioned by it in the written statement. 4.1. The respondent accepted that the petitioners were working with the respondent Board as Field Attendant, however, the respondent Board claimed that the petitioners were engaged for the project, viz. National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Project ('the project' for short) and that, therefore, their engagement with the respondent Board was temporary and they were engaged on daily wage basis. The respondent Board also accepted in the written statement that in local limit of Vadodara, the respondent Board run and managed five field stations and the petitioners were engaged at the said five field stations. The respondent Board, however, denied the allegation that the petitioners worked in different shifts and it claimed that the petitioners worked only for one shift. The respondent Board also accepted that the petitioners were paid their salary at Rs. 20 per day. The respondent Board also claimed that the said project was awarded by the Central Government. The respondent Board, however, denied the allegation that the petitioners worked in different shifts and it claimed that the petitioners worked only for one shift. The respondent Board also accepted that the petitioners were paid their salary at Rs. 20 per day. The respondent Board also claimed that the said project was awarded by the Central Government. The respondent Board also accepted that the petitioners were engaged as and they performed duties of Field Attendants. 4.2. It will not be out of place to also mention that during the hearing of present petition, learned advocate for the respondent Board submitted that though the said fact was not mentioned in the written statement, the witness of the respondent Board had mentioned in his deposition that the project was closed and project work had come to an end in 1993. Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for the respondent Board further clarified, during the hearing of present petition, that the project was closed somewhere in June 1993. 5. Thus, it has emerged as undisputed fact that the petitioners were relieved before the project was closed and before the project work actually came to an end. 6. Reverting to the proceedings and the chronology it may be mentioned that after the pleadings were completed, the learned Labour Court recorded evidence and after the parties closed their evidence, the learned Labour Court heard the rival submissions by the contesting parties. Subsequently, after considering the material on record and the submissions by learned advocates for the claimants and the respondent Board, the learned Labour Court passed the award which is impugned in present petition. The learned Labour Court rejected the objections by the respondent Board that it is not an industry and held that the activity of the Board would fall within the term 'industry' under section 2(j) of the Act. The learned Labour Court also recorded in the award that the employer did not lead any evidence to prove that the claimants - workmen were gainfully employed during intervening period. According to the findings of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court, the service of the workmen were undisputedly terminated without issuing one month's notice or paying salary in lieu of notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation. According to the findings of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court, the service of the workmen were undisputedly terminated without issuing one month's notice or paying salary in lieu of notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation. Having recorded such findings of fact, learned Labour Court also recorded findings of fact and conclusion that the employer terminated the service of the concerned workmen in contravention of Section 25F of the Act. In light of impugned award and partly allowed the reference with above said directions. 6.1. So far as one claimant Mr. Vishwas is concerned the learned Labour Court recorded that he had not appeared before the Court and had not led any evidence. By taking note of the said fact, the learned Labour Court dismissed his reference for want of evidence. 7. Mr. Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the concerned workmen, submitted that in present case, so far as the relevant factors are concerned, learned Labour Court has recorded findings of fact in favour of the concerned workmen, inasmuch as the learned Labour Court has held that the concerned workmen had worked for more than 12 months with the petitioner Board and that they had worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months and that the service of the respondent workmen were terminated orally without serving notice and without payment of compensation and that the action of terminating the service of the concerned workmen was in violation of Section 25F. He further submitted that when such specific findings in respect of each relevant fact is recorded in favour of the workmen, then, the relief of reinstatement and the direction to pay backwages should not have been denied to the workmen and the direction to pay compensation instead of directing the Board to reinstate the workmen and to pay backwages is not justified and the learned Labour Court has, thereby, committed error of law and jurisdiction and that, therefore, the said direction deserves to be set aside and the Board should be directed to reinstate the respondent workmen and pay backwages for the intervening period. Mr. Mehta, learned senior counsel for the concerned workmen relied on the decisions in the cases of S.M. Nilajkar & Ors. Mr. Mehta, learned senior counsel for the concerned workmen relied on the decisions in the cases of S.M. Nilajkar & Ors. vs. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 27 , Nagar Palika Nigam vs. Shaukat Khan, (2015) 4 SCC 544 , Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Man Singh, (2012) 1 SCC 558 , Surendra Kumar Verma & Ors. vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi & Anr., (1980) 4 SCC 443 , Narotam Chopra vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Ors, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 97, Union of India vs. K.S. Joseph, (2004) 2 SCALE 398 . 8. Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for the Board opposed the petition and the contentions by learned Senior Counsel for the workmen. Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for the Board submitted that the respondent were engaged on project work and the said fact was established before the learned Labour Court with help of the documents which were placed on record of the reference before the learned Labour Court. Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate, further submitted that the respondent were engaged for project work and the said project was Central Government's project and when instruction to reduce total strength of the employees engaged on the project was issued, the concerned workmen were relieved. Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate, submitted that in view of the fact that the concerned workmen were engaged for project work and for limited period and on temporary and daily wage basis, the said termination of the concerned workmen would fall within purview of clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act and that therefore it would not amount to retrenchment and consequently, the said termination would not attract the obligation to comply with the condition prescribed under Section 25F of the Act and the action is not vitiated on account of non-payment of compensation. Learned counsel for the Board submitted that the Board had placed on record the payment vouchers under which the payment of wages were made to the concerned workmen which reflected and established that the claimants were engaged on a project and for project work. He submitted that the petitions preferred by the concerned workmen deserves to be rejected and the petition preferred by the Board deserves to be allowed and the request by the workmen for direction to reinstate the concerned workmen and/or to pay backwages is unjustified and does not deserve to be entertained. He submitted that the petitions preferred by the concerned workmen deserves to be rejected and the petition preferred by the Board deserves to be allowed and the request by the workmen for direction to reinstate the concerned workmen and/or to pay backwages is unjustified and does not deserve to be entertained. He submitted that the said petitions filed by the workmen may be rejected and the direction to pay compensation may be set aside and the action of the Board may be upheld. Mr. Chuhan, learned advocate for the board relied on the decisions in the cases of Ashok Shankarrao Chavan vs. Madhavrao Kinhalkar & Ors., (2014) 7 SCC 99 , Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation & Anr. vs. Gitam Singh (2013) 5 SCC 136 , Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal vs. Santosh Kumar Seal & Ors., (2010) 6 SCC 773 . 9. I have considered the submissions and material available on record and the impugned award. 10. In light of the facts of the case and in view of the material on record it has emerged that fulcrum or central theme of the dispute or controversy and main issue involved in present group of cases is whether the appointment of the claimants would come within the purview of clause (bb) of section 2(oo) and thereby whether the claimants' termination fell outside the reach of section 25F of the Act. 10.1. This is the main issue which is raised for decision in this group of petitions. 11. However, before proceeding further it would be appropriate to take note of certain aspects and some of the findings which emerge from the award. 11.1. In the award, the learned Labour Court recorded that the second party workmen were appointed on project which was completed in 1993. In this context it is necessary to mention that the workmen have categorically assailed the said finding of fact by the learned Labour Court, viz. that the workmen were appointed on project and it is submitted that the workmen were never informed, at the time when they were employed or even during the period when they were in employment they were not informed by the respondent that they were employed for and on a project work. 11.2. that the workmen were appointed on project and it is submitted that the workmen were never informed, at the time when they were employed or even during the period when they were in employment they were not informed by the respondent that they were employed for and on a project work. 11.2. In the award, learned Labour Court has recorded findings of fact that (a) the date of joining the service as claimed by the workmen have been admitted by the Board. Meaning thereby, there is no dispute with regard to the date of joining the services with the workmen; (b) that the concerned workmen were appointed and they were working as field assistant. The learned Labour Court also recorded findings of fact that there is no dispute that during their tenure of service with the Board, the workmen had completed 240 days of continuous service; (c) another important and relevant finding of fact which is recorded by the learned Labour Court is that the Board did not even raise the defence that the petitioner workmen were not orally terminated; and that (d) the claimants had expressly called upon the petitioner Board, by a specific averment in the statement of claim, to place on record the muster roll and pay registers of relevant period. The said demand was made on the ground that the said relevant record were in possession and custody of the Board and also on the ground that they were not supplied the document reflecting payment of salary; and that (e) the work related to measurement of pollution (air/water) continues on regular basis, it being principal function of the Board. 11.3. From the record it has emerged that under the list of documents (Exh. 59) certain documents were placed on record by the Board which, include vouchers by virtue of which salary was paid to the concerned workman No. 1. This Court has examined the vouchers (from R&P of the case which was called for) and the pay register so as to be satisfied about the contents. 11.4. Along with the aspects emerging from the award and the pleadings it would also be proper to take into account oral evidence available on record. 11.5. During the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, deposition of the concerned workman No. 1 i.e. Mr. Mansoria was recorded at Exh. 25. 11.4. Along with the aspects emerging from the award and the pleadings it would also be proper to take into account oral evidence available on record. 11.5. During the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, deposition of the concerned workman No. 1 i.e. Mr. Mansoria was recorded at Exh. 25. In his deposition, the said workman/witness reiterated the details mentioned in the statement of claim. The workmen also asserted that neither any contract was executed nor letter of appointment was issued with specific stipulation that they were appointed only for project/work of project and for fixed period viz. until the project/project work continues and they were not informed about such condition. In the evidence, the witness also mentioned that on 6.1.1989, when they approached the officer to receive their salary, they were served with communication dated 6.1.1989 and they were asked to put their signature on the said letter wherein it was mentioned that they had voluntarily resigned and they were informed by Mr. Bhatt that only if they sign the said letter, they will be allowed to report for duty. The said workman/witness also claimed that even on 7.1.1989, they were not allowed to resume duties. The said workman/witness claimed that when in pursuance of the said settlement (which was arrived at in the office of Labour Commissioner) they reported for duty on 13.2.1989, they were not allowed to resume duties and they were informed that since they had approached the authority, they should go and ask for work from the authority. The witness/workmen also described the nature of duties and functions which they were required to perform. The concerned workmen also claimed that they were marking their attendance in the data sheet and the details of attendance recorded in the data sheet were then transferred and recorded into muster roll. During his cross-examination, the said workman/witness denied the suggestion that the appointment was on temporary basis. During the cross-examination, the said workman/witness was confronted with "Pagaar Patrak" (pay register). After considering the said document, the workman/witness stated that the words "MAAQMP" project was inserted subsequently and the said statement was of August 1988 and November 1988. In addition to the deposition of the said witness, deposition of another workman/witness namely Mr. Raju Mansingh was recorded at Exh. 28. From the award, it appears that other concerned workmen had also filed affidavits in lieu of examination-in-chief. 11.6. In addition to the deposition of the said witness, deposition of another workman/witness namely Mr. Raju Mansingh was recorded at Exh. 28. From the award, it appears that other concerned workmen had also filed affidavits in lieu of examination-in-chief. 11.6. On behalf of the respondent, one Gunvantbhai Bhogilal was examined as the Board's witness whose evidence is recorded at Exh. 102. The said witness of the Board explained, in his deposition, the selection procedure. The said witness of the Board claimed that the concerned workmen were engaged on project and for project work. It is pertinent that the said witness of the Board claimed that the respondent workmen were relieved because the project work was over and they were relieved when the project was closed. 11.7. During his cross-examination, the said witness of the Board accepted that when the concerned workmen were recruited/employed, he was not posted at Vadodara office and he is not aware as to whether the workmen were engaged after process of interview or not. The said witness of the Board mentioned in his deposition that the said MAAQMP project was over and the said project was closed in 1993. The said witness of the Board also accepted during his cross-examination that the concerned workmen were relieved in 1988 and at that time, he was not posted at Vadodara and therefore, he had no idea about the reason on account of which the workmen were relieved in 1988. 11.8. He also accepted that he had no idea as to whether the concerned workmen were relieved and terminated after service of any notice or their services were terminated by oral order. 11.9. The said witness of the Board also accepted that he was not aware as to whether the workmen were paid compensation at the time when their service was terminated or not. It is also pertinent that the said witness of the Board accepted in his cross-examination that the activities of the Board including the activity of assessment of air pollution still continues. He mentioned that the work of MAAQMP project is closed. 12. After considering oral and documentary evidence available on record the learned Labour Court recorded finding of fact that 'it is also not in dispute that second party workmen have completed 240 days of continuous service'. He mentioned that the work of MAAQMP project is closed. 12. After considering oral and documentary evidence available on record the learned Labour Court recorded finding of fact that 'it is also not in dispute that second party workmen have completed 240 days of continuous service'. In paragraph No. 28 of the award, the learned Labour Court recorded below quoted specific finding of fact: "28. In the present case it is not defence of the first party that the second party workmen were not orally terminated, it is also no defence of the first party that the second party workmen were given one months notice or were paid money for that period or the second party workmen were paid retrenchment." 13. As can be seen from the written statement of the Board and its oral evidence the Board had tried to take recourse under section 2(oo)(bb) and claimed that the appointments of the petitioners were for project work and for fixed period and on contract for specified work and specific period and that, therefore, section 25F was not applicable, hence its action of relieving the petitioners without notice or compensation cannot be faulted. 14. The question therefore arises is whether the petitioners' appointments can be considered as covered by clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of the Act. 15. The appointments, so as to qualify as appointments covered by clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of the Act, must meet with and possess certain characteristics or ingredients viz. (a) the appointment must be brought in effect by virtue of specific contract or appointment letter; (b) the workman must be appointed for project or scheme of temporary/limited period/duration; (c) the contract should be for specific job/work for specified period; (d) the appointment must be contract based and not merely as daily wager; (e) the employee must have been informed and made aware, at the time of appointment, that the appointment is only for the project/project work and for limited/specific period and that the employment will come to an end with the completion of work; (f) engagement of workman as daily wager does not, by itself, amount to putting the workmen on notice that he was being engaged in a scheme or on a project for limited period/time; (g) the employment by virtue of the term of appointment should come to an end simultaneously with the project work i.e. both should be co-terminus. 16. 16. It is, therefore, necessary to find out whether the petitioners' appointments fulfill the said requirements/criteria. 16.1. From the material on record it has emerged that: (a) The project started in 1984; (b) According to the respondents, the project work was over and the project was closed in June 1993; (c) Whereas the service of the concerned respondents were terminated with effect from 31.12.1988, i.e. almost 5 years before the project was closed (meaning thereby the termination/closure of the project and service of the claimants was not simultaneous); (d) When the respondents were appointed, they were engaged after conducting interview however any contract(s) were not executed and/or appointment letters were issued; (e) and any contract or letter of appointment, with express stipulation and condition clearly informing the employee about specified/limited period of job/work (project) and fixed tenure of appointment were not issued/executed; (f) there is nothing to prove/establish (differently put it is not proved by the Board) that the claimants were appointed exclusively for project work and/or with clear stipulation that they are engaged for specific job and for limited period and/or that they were specifically and expressly informed that they are engaged only for the project work and their engagement will continue only till the project continues and will come to an end when the project would end. 17. Thus, the plea or defence on ground of clause (bb) of section 2(oo) is not available to the Board. 18. Besides this, in present case it is not possible (for the Board) to invoke provision under clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of the Act inasmuch as (1) the Board had relieved the concerned workmen long time before (i.e. almost 5 years before) the project work was completed and before the project came to be closed inasmuch as the concerned workmen came to be relieved in December 1988, whereas the project was closed in June 1993 and (2) the petitioners came to be terminated not on account of completion of project work but because the respondent Board was instructed from Central Office to reduce strength/number of employees. If the service of the concerned workmen was terminated at the time when the project closed, then probably the plea raised by the Board might have rendered some assistance to the Board to contend that the workmen were engaged for project work and they came to be relieved when the project came to an end. However, in present case, that is not the fact-situation since the workmen came to be relieved long time before the project came to be closed not because the project work had come to end and it was time to terminate and close the project but because Central Office wanted to reduce number/strength of employees. It is pertinent that even the witness of the Board accepted and admitted in his evidence that the respondents were relieved because instructions were received from the head office to reduce total number of persons engaged for the project work. 19. In this view of the matter, the conclusion by the learned Labour Court that the action of relieving the workmen amounts to retrenchment and would be covered under section 25F of the Act cannot be faulted. 20. In this context, it is relevant and appropriate to take into account some additional facts which are connected with and attached to the engagement and termination of the concerned workmen. They are - (a) the concerned workmen were engaged after facing and passing through the interview process; (b) before they were relieved the concerned workmen had worked for more than 12 months with the Board; (c) before the workmen were relived they had worked for more than 240 days; (d) their services were not put to an end as part of measures to reduce total number of persons engaged by the Board. 21. Despite such undisputed details, the Board, with a view to justifying its action claimed that the name of the project was mentioned in the vouchers under which the petitioners were paid salary. 21.1. Now, therefore, it would be appropriate to consider the vouchers on which the Board relies to sup port its action. Out of various vouchers the first voucher placed on record is the voucher of 3rd December 1986. 21.1. Now, therefore, it would be appropriate to consider the vouchers on which the Board relies to sup port its action. Out of various vouchers the first voucher placed on record is the voucher of 3rd December 1986. As a specimen the said document/voucher is reproduced herein below:- Gujarat Water and Air Pollution Control Board GANDINAGAR Docket Voucher Voucher No.26 Name of the payee Shri D.B. Malusare (Field Asst.) Date : - 3.12.1986 Particulars of Payment Head of a/c Amount Rs. Paid salary to Shri D.H. Malusare daily wages filed asst. from 24.11.1986 to 29.11.1986, 6 days at the rate of 20 Rs. Per day. Debit 120=00 20 x 6 = 120=00 Credit Rupees (in words) Net 120=00 Certified that the expenditure included in this Docket Voucher could not with due regard to the interest of the Board, be avoided. Passed for payment (In words) Please pay Rs.(in words) 120=00 (One hundred twenty only) 120=00 (One hundred twenty only) Entered in Periodic Register at __________ by Cheque/Case/D.D. Page No.31 Sr. No.2 Prepared by Acctt. Chief Accounts Office Member Secretary Received payment Rs. C.V. No………..Months…………… 22. A photocopy of pay-roll for the month of January 1987 (5.1.1987) was also placed on record before the labour Court. The photocopies which are placed on record reflect name/designation of the workman, total number of day for which the concerned workman worked in the month, rate of per day salary and total amount paid to the concerned workman for the said month. 22.1. When the said document is examined there is nothing to indicate that the concerned workman were engaged for specified work and for limited/specific period and they worked for any particular project. 22.2. Even the voucher dated 3.12.1986 does not contain any details which would indicate that the workman was engaged on and he worked for any particular project. 22.3. Similar position has emerged so far the pay roll for the month of February 1987 is concerned and the said document also does not reflect any detail which would indicate that the concerned persons were engaged or they worked in particular project. 22.4. However, so as to appreciate the difference between the vouchers prepared earlier and the vouchers prepared for subsequent period. The difference can be noticed by comparing above mentioned voucher prepared on 3.12.1976 with the voucher dated 6.11.1987. 22.4. However, so as to appreciate the difference between the vouchers prepared earlier and the vouchers prepared for subsequent period. The difference can be noticed by comparing above mentioned voucher prepared on 3.12.1976 with the voucher dated 6.11.1987. For the said purpose it is appropriate to also take look at the voucher dated 6.11.1987. Therefore the details mentioned therein are reproduced below:- Gujarat Water and Air Pollution Control Board, GANDINAGAR Docket Voucher Voucher No.26 Name of the payee Shri D.B. Malusare (Field Asst) Date : 6.11.1987 Particulars of Payment - Head of a/c Amount Rs. Salary paid to daily wages field Asst. Shri D.B, Malusare as per Head Office order No. H.O. No. APC/Project/Board/CBI Corr/1985/dt.23/9/86 @ per day Debit 500/- From To 1/10/87 20/10/87 20 days Credit 27/10/87 30/10/87 4 days Note : 20/- x 24 days Extra salary paid for 8 hours duty @ 20/- per day for dtd. 30/10/84 480/- +20/- 500/- Rupees (in words) five Hundred only Net 500=00 Certified that the expenditure included in this Docket Voucher could not with due regard to the interest of the Board, be avoided. Passed for payment Rs.500=00 (in words) Five Hundred only Please pay Rs.500=00 (in words) Five hundred only Entered in Muster Register at _____________________by Cheque/Case/D.D. Page No.31 Sr. No.2 Prepared by Acctt. Chief Accounts Office Regional Officer Received payment Rs. C.V. No………….. Month ………… 22.5. The details similar to the details mentioned in the voucher dated 6.11.1987 are mentioned in the voucher dated 8.2.1988 and 4.6.1988. 22.6. From comparative reading (of the vouchers) it comes out that at later and subsequent stage the Board - as an afterthought - started making reference of the project in the payment vouchers, from November 1987 however the said details are not found in the vouchers of earlier period and/or from the copies of pay roll which was placed on record. 22.7. It is pertinent that the vouchers for initial period, i.e. when appointments were made, did not contain any reference of the name of the project and the Board started to mention that name at later stage. 23. 22.7. It is pertinent that the vouchers for initial period, i.e. when appointments were made, did not contain any reference of the name of the project and the Board started to mention that name at later stage. 23. Thus, the vouchers also do not render any help to the Board in establishing that the appointments fall within the purview of clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of the Act inasmuch as the vouchers do not establish that at the time of appointment the petitioners were informed about the alleged nature of their appointment. 24. In absence of contract of employment or appointment letter containing specific stipulation as to the nature of appointment and in absence of any proof that such intimation was conveyed to the workmen, the Board failed to establish that at the time when the concerned persons came to be appointed they were made aware about the fact that their appointment was made on the project and for project work and will come to end on completion of project work/closure of project. This aspect is only one side or a part of the issue. 25. The clause postulates that there must be specific contract (or at least specific appointment letters) and they should contain specific stipulation or declaration clearly and specifically informing the employees - at the time of appointment - about the nature/tenure of their appointment. In light of undisputed absence of any contract or even appointment letters by merely mentioning name of the project in the voucher the employer - Board cannot prove that all ingredients or criteria or factors relevant and necessary for attracting clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of the Act, are fulfilled (in case of the appointments of the petitioners). 26. The foregoing discussion and the material on record has brought out that the appointments of the petitioners were not in consonance with and/or covered by clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of the Act. Thus, the said contention/defence of the Board in light of and on the basis or strength of clause (bb) of section 2(oo) fails. 27. Now, when it is established that said defence is not available to the Board, the question which arise is whether there is anything on record to assail the conclusion of the learned Court about breach of section 25F of the Act. 27.1. 27. Now, when it is established that said defence is not available to the Board, the question which arise is whether there is anything on record to assail the conclusion of the learned Court about breach of section 25F of the Act. 27.1. In this context it is necessary to note that there is no dispute as regards the fact - rather it is undisputed and admitted fact - that (a) the petitioners were continuously engaged for more than 12 months; (b) the petitioners had worked for 240 days in all slots of 12 months and also during preceding 12 months; (c) their services were terminated on account of the instruction from Central Office/Government to reduce the strength/number of employees; (d) their services were terminated about 5 years before the project was completed; (e) when their services were discontinued notice under section 25F(a) and/or 25F(c) were not issued/served; (f) retrenchment compensation was not paid before, or at the time of, retrenchment (or even subsequently); (g) the seniority list of employees as prescribed by Rule 81 was not notified/displayed seven days before termination; (g) the appointments are not covered/protected by/under clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of the Act; (h) and that therefore section 25F was attracted and was applicable to the termination of the claimants. 27.2. The facts mentioned above clearly establish that conditions prescribed by section 25F were not complied by the Board while discontinuing the petitioners. 27.3. In light of such facts the learned Court reached to and recorded finding of fact viz. that the termination of service of the claimants was clearly in violation of section 25F of the Act. The foregoing discussion has brought out that the said finding and conclusion also is not incorrect or perverse and it cannot be faulted and does not warrant interference. 27.4. In this view of the matter, as corollary and as normal consequence such termination which is in violation of section 25F should be treated as ab initio void and should be cured with necessary and appropriate directions. 28. The learned counsel for the Board, faced with this situation claimed that even in case where termination of service of employee is in violation of section 25F, the Court can mould the relief and it is not mandatory to grant reinstatement and backwages. 28. The learned counsel for the Board, faced with this situation claimed that even in case where termination of service of employee is in violation of section 25F, the Court can mould the relief and it is not mandatory to grant reinstatement and backwages. He submitted that in present case the project is concluded and there is no post and no vacancy where the petitioners can be appointed and about 20 years have passed after their termination. Therefore, the request for reinstatement may not be granted. 28.1. The submission translates into the submission that though the termination are found to be in violation of mandatory provision viz. section 25F, the relief may be modified in terms of appropriate lump sum compensation. So as to support said submission Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for the respondents also relied on the decision in case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal vs. Santosh Kumar Seal, (2010) 6 SCC 773 where also similar issue was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble Apex Court observed, inter alia, that:- "9. In last few years it has been consistently held by this Court that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic even if termination of an employee is found to be illegal or is in contravention of the prescribed procedure and that monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in cases of such nature may be appropriate, (See U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and Anr. v. Uday Narain Pandey; Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi; State of M.P. and Ors. v. Lalit Kumar Verma; Madhya Pradesh Administration v. Tribhuban; Sita Ram and Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute; Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai and Anr.; Ghaziabad Development Authority and Anr. v. Ashok Kumar and Anr. and Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula). 10. In a recent judgment authored by one of us (R.M. Lodha, J.) in the case of Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Anr., the aforesaid decisions were noticed and it was stated: "7. It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact-situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. 14. It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee." 28.2. In the said decision Hon'ble Apex Court awarded compensation to the workman having regard to the fact that the persons were engaged on daily wage basis before about 25 years and they had hardly worked for 3 years. 29. Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for the respondents relied on the decision in case of Asst. Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation vs. Gitam Singh, (2013) 5 SCC 136 wherein concerned person was engaged on daily wage basis and he had worked hardly for 8 months, Hon'ble Apex Court considered it appropriate to mould the relief and granted the compensation by setting aside the award directing reinstatement with continuity of service and with 25% backwages. 29.1. The said decision does not help the board in view of the fact that the concerned persons had worked only for 8 months and were engaged on daily wage basis whereas in present case it has emerged from the relevant fact that before their service came to be terminated the concerned persons had worked for about 2 years. 29.1. The said decision does not help the board in view of the fact that the concerned persons had worked only for 8 months and were engaged on daily wage basis whereas in present case it has emerged from the relevant fact that before their service came to be terminated the concerned persons had worked for about 2 years. It has also come on record that they were engaged after passing through process of interview. 29.2. On the other hand Mr. Mehta relied on the decisions in cases of S.M. Nilajkar (supra), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra), Surendra Kumar Verma (supra), Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D. Ed.), (2013) 10 SCC 324 and Bhuvnesh Kumar Trivedi vs. Hindalco Industries, AIR 2014 SC 2258 . When the decisions referred to and relied on by learned counsel for the workmen are examined, it emerges that the common thread which passes through all decisions is that ordinarily when termination of service of the workmen is found to be in violation of statutory provision, the relief in form of reinstatement and backwages at appropriate rate (depending on the facts of the case and evidence available on record) would be passed by the learned Labour Court, unless circumstances (for instance, the establishment is closed down or that the establishment is in severe financial tolerance or that the workman has secured other employment or that in view of the existing circumstances, reinstatement of the workman is not feasible etc.) are shown to satisfy the Court that the final relief should be moulded in terms of lump sum compensation. 30. Thus, in present case, it has emerged that (i) in November 1986, the respondents submitted applications seeking appointment; (ii) in pursuance of their applications, they were called for interview for the post of Field Assistant somewhere in November 1986; (iii) the respondents were selected pursuant to the process for interview and they were appointed/engaged pursuant to their selection (which followed the process of interview); (iv) thus the appointment of the claimants were not illegal. Even according to the case put forward by the Board (that the claimants were engaged for project and after interview and were relieved/discontinued on account of instruction from central) the appointments cannot be termed illegal. Even according to the case put forward by the Board (that the claimants were engaged for project and after interview and were relieved/discontinued on account of instruction from central) the appointments cannot be termed illegal. The appointments, in light of the facts of the case, cannot be termed wholly irregular; (v) however, the petitioner did not issue/supply (to the respondents) any appointment letter; (vi) they worked for about 2 years before the Board continued their service and relieved them; (vii) undisputedly, the termination of service of the respondents was brought about in breach of section 25F; (viii) the respondents had to contest litigation almost 15 years before the learned Labour Court and then for further about 9 years for opposing this petition. (Though of course entire blame for the intervening 24 years cannot be thrown only on the shoulders of the workmen.) In this background the issue which arises is whether in present case also the direction to reinstate the concerned persons and the direction to pay full backwages for the intervening period should follow/should be granted or any variation should be made and would be justified in light of the facts of this case. 31. It would not be just and fair to deny, on one hand, the relief which would ordinarily follow in case where the termination is held to be in violation of mandatory statutory provision and, on the other hand, to restrict or curtail the alternative/modified relief viz. lump sum compensation, to Rs. 50,000/-. According to the learned senior counsel for the workmen the said amount is unreasonably and negligibly low. On overall consideration of facts the said submission on behalf of the claimants has substance and cannot be ignored. 32. If the workmen are to be denied the relief which would go into their hands as ordinary and normal relief after the termination is held illegal i.e. reinstatement and backwages and instead, they are to be awarded some other relief viz. lump sum compensation, then the amount to be so awarded should, at least, be just and should be such which would really compensate them in actual and effective terms and in right spirit. lump sum compensation, then the amount to be so awarded should, at least, be just and should be such which would really compensate them in actual and effective terms and in right spirit. On this count it is appropriate, at this stage, to recall and consider following aspects: (a) undoubtedly, the action of the respondent Board of terminating service is in violation of Section 25F and therefore ab intio void; and (b) at the same time the action is not and cannot be said to be malafide or by way of victimization but it appears to be pure and simple retrenchment. 33. Having regard to the above aspect the Court is of the view that though the fact of the case would, ordinarily, justify direction for reinstatement, in present case having regard to the above mentioned fact, it appears that instead of directing the Board to reinstate the claimants, it would be proper to award appropriate compensation which may reasonably compensate the concerned persons. 34. It is pertinent that when the claimants were terminated their salary was Rs. 20/- per day, however when the learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that their services were terminated by committing breach of section 25F of the Act and passed the award, the rate of minimum wage was more than Rs. 140/- per day and the rate of minimum wages during the period when the workmen contested the petitions has undergone revision in the interregnum and the minimum wages rate reached to about Rs. 200/- per day and by now rate of minimum wages is more than Rs. 240/- per day. If the claimants were to be reinstated they would be earning wages at such rate. Likewise quantum of backwages would have been substantial even if backwages were awarded at 50%. In view of this Court, this aspect needs to be taken into account while deciding proper relief to the workmen in present cases. 35. Mr. 240/- per day. If the claimants were to be reinstated they would be earning wages at such rate. Likewise quantum of backwages would have been substantial even if backwages were awarded at 50%. In view of this Court, this aspect needs to be taken into account while deciding proper relief to the workmen in present cases. 35. Mr. Mehta, learned senior counsel for the workmen submitted that if this Court also holds that the workmen should be granted relief in terms of lump sum compensation instead of granting reinstatement, then in that event, the decision dated 21.8.2013 by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. C.P. Goswami [Civil Appeal No. 6968 of 2013] may be taken into account and the amount of compensation granted to the workmen in the said order may also be taken into consideration. He submitted that if the Court comes to the conclusion of awarding lump sum compensation, then the rate of compensation may be determined in light of said decision. The facts of the said case are condensed in paragraphs No. 4 and 5 of the decision which read thus: "4. The respondent-workman was working as a driver of the appellant-Corporation. On 17th January, 1996, the respondent had abused staff members of the Corporation and created hindrance in the work of the Corporation. It was also alleged that the respondent was under influence of liquor at the time when he had misbehaved. In the aforestated circumstances, the respondent was placed under suspension and after holding a departmental enquiry, by an order dated 28th February, 1998, his service had been terminated. Being aggrieved by the order terminating his service, he had raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal and the Tribunal had looked into the entire case under its Adjudication Case No. 73 of 1999. 5. After considering the evidence adduced before the Tribunal, it had come to the conclusion that the termination of the respondent was not legal and therefore, by an award dated 30th June, 2001, the order terminating service of the respondent dated 28th February, 1998, had been quashed and it was directed that the respondent should be reinstated in service as a driver with continuity of service and with arrears of salary for the period during which the respondent-workman was not permitted to perform his duties." 35.1. In such factual background Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 10 of the decision that: "10. Instead of awarding back wages, in view of the facts of the case, it would be just and proper to award, in all a sum of Rs. 5 lacs by way of compensation to the respondent-workman. It had been submitted that the appellant-Corporation had already paid more than Rs. 3,60,000/- to the respondent-workman and if it is so, the amount so paid shall be adjusted while paying the compensation of Rs. 5 lacs. Thus, we direct that by way of compensation, in all Rs. 5 lacs should be given to the respondent-workman in lieu of back wages. The said amount shall be paid to the workman within four weeks from today." 36. Learned advocate for the Board emphasized the fact that the project is closed and there is no vacancy on the permanent establishment of the Board for engaging/continuing the concerned workmen in the service with the Board and that almost 25 years have passed since the claimants were relieved from service and that, therefore, appropriate order/directions may be passed. He also submitted that the concerned workmen must have reached 50 years of age, or more and the said aspect may also be taken into account. 36.1. In this context, Mr. Mehta, learned senior counsel submitted that assuming that average age of the concerned workmen would be about 50 years at this stage, then the concerned workmen, if reinstated, will get tenure of about 8 to 10 years. Thus, if the request/option for relief other than reinstatement/backwages is to be considered then loss of backwages and balance period of service may be taken into account. 37. This Court has taken into account above mentioned aspects as well as the facts of the case. The workman in the cited decision was not a casual employee and it appears that his tenure of service was not as short as in case of present claimants. At the same time it is also a fact of the case that the workman's service was terminated, of course by defective procedure, for serious - grave misconduct. 37.1. Having regard to the fact that the Board terminated services of concerned workmen in violation of section 25F and consequently, but for the exceptional circumstances urged by the Board the concerned workmen would be entitled for reinstatement as well as backwages. 37.1. Having regard to the fact that the Board terminated services of concerned workmen in violation of section 25F and consequently, but for the exceptional circumstances urged by the Board the concerned workmen would be entitled for reinstatement as well as backwages. However, considering special circumstances attached to these cases, the Court finds that ordinary relief which would have been available for the concerned workmen, is required to be moulded and modified. 37.2. Though the termination of the service of the concerned workmen has to be set aside in view of the fact that it was brought in force illegally and by violating section 25F of the Act, it would, however, not be proper to direct the Board to reinstate the concerned workmen with consequential benefits more particularly in light of the fact that undisputedly vacancy on permanent establishment is not available and about 25 years have passed since their termination and on an average all claimants would have either crossed or reached 50 years of age. Instead, if the appropriate lump sum compensation is awarded, then such relief would meet the ends of justice and would also balance the equities. On overall consideration of all relevant aspects and above mentioned submissions and facts of the case, this Court is of the view that following order and directions shall serve the interest of justice. 38. The decision of the learned Labour Court that the services of the concerned workmen were terminated illegally and in violation of section 25F, is confirmed and the termination of the services of the concerned workmen is set aside, however, the relief claimed by the workmen, i.e. reinstatement with backwages is not granted and instead, the claimants (except Mr. Vishwas) are awarded lump sum compensation @ Rs. 3.65 lakh. 38.1. It is clarified that all workmen, except Mr. P.B. Vishwas (whose reference is rejected by the learned Labour Court on the ground that he never appeared before the learned Labour Court and never prosecuted the reference), shall be paid the aforesaid amount i.e. Rs. 3.65 lakh (Rupees Three Lakh Sixty Five Thousand only) as lump sum compensation. 38.2. The decision of the learned Labour Court of rejecting the reference case of Mr. P.B. Vishwas is also confirmed and it is clarified and declared that the said workman shall not be entitled for any relief. 38.3. 3.65 lakh (Rupees Three Lakh Sixty Five Thousand only) as lump sum compensation. 38.2. The decision of the learned Labour Court of rejecting the reference case of Mr. P.B. Vishwas is also confirmed and it is clarified and declared that the said workman shall not be entitled for any relief. 38.3. The aforesaid amount of lump sum compensation shall be paid to all concerned workmen (except Mr. P.B. Vishwas) as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. 38.4. With the aforesaid directions and clarifications, the petitions are disposed of. The petitions, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 17160 of 2005 to Special Civil Application No. 17166 of 2005 filed by the Board are rejected and Rule in the said petitions stands discharged. The petitions being Special Civil Application No. 8930 of 2005 to 8937 of 2005 filed by the concerned workmen are partly allowed and on the said petitions, Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Orders accordingly.