JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral) : The present petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs: ?A. That the writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued to quashing the impugned award dated 23.10.2008 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court (Respondent No. 2). B. That the entire relevant record of the case may kindly be summoned from the respondent for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. C. That the cost of the petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. D. That any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed.? 2. The case of petitioner is that respondent No. 1 was initially engaged as a daily paid labourer on 3.6.1995 against the work ?Construction of Training Hostel at Manali?, which was a project work under NARP funded by the Government of India. As per the petitioner, respondent No. 1 had worked with it at different intervals and after 20.08.1998, his services were dispensed with for want of work and funds. The said respondent did not complete 240 days in any of the calendar year. Against the said termination of his services, respondent No. 1 had raised an industrial dispute before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Kullu, Himahal Pradesh. As the matter could not be reconciled, accordingly the same was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Dharamshala on the following reference: ?Whether the termination of services of Sh. Pratap Singh, S/o Shri Chambal Ram workman by the (1) Registrar, Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Distt. Solan, H.P.(2) Executive Engineer (Const.), Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Distt. Solan, H.P. w.e.f. 21.08.98 without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is proper and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits and amount of compensation the above aggrieved workman is entitled to?? 3. The learned Labour Court vide its award dated 23.10.2008 granted the following relief in favour of present respondent No. 1: ?19. Judged in the light of my findings on the issues above, particularly issues 1 and 2, the petition succeeds partly and is allowed in part. The petitioner is held entitled to reinstatement with 25% back-wages. 3. The learned Labour Court vide its award dated 23.10.2008 granted the following relief in favour of present respondent No. 1: ?19. Judged in the light of my findings on the issues above, particularly issues 1 and 2, the petition succeeds partly and is allowed in part. The petitioner is held entitled to reinstatement with 25% back-wages. Besides, he is held entitled to the benefit of continuity of service. There shall no orders as to costs. The respondents are directed to re-engage the petitioner within a period of 90 days from today. The reference is answered accordingly. A copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Govt. for publication and the file after completion consigned to records.? 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the award so passed by the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P. by way of present petition. 5. As per the petitioner, the impugned award is not sustainable in law because the learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate that the service of respondent No. 1 was for a casual, specific and seasonal work under DARP, which was an adhoc project of the Government of India undertaken at the time of construction of training hostel at Manali. As per the petitioner, respondent No. 1 had never completed 240 days continuously in any calendar year and further he had also given an undertaking in writing to the effect that he will not claim any seniority or regularization on account of his seasonal engagement with the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 was specifically told at the time of his engagement that the said engagement was work specific pertaining to the work of construction of training hostel at Manali and that his services were liable to be dispensed with on the completion of the said work. Thus, as per the petitioner, the appointment of respondent No. 1 was co-terminus with the completion of work of hostel. According to the petitioner, these aspects of the matter had not been appreciated in correct perspective by the learned Labour Court and, therefore, the award passed by it was bad in law and liable to be quashed and aside. According to the petitioner, the appointment of respondent No. 1 as daily waged workman was neither under any relevant rules nor the engagement was against any post. According to the petitioner, the appointment of respondent No. 1 as daily waged workman was neither under any relevant rules nor the engagement was against any post. His appointment was for seasonal work and he was not appointed by following any relevant Recruitment Rules against any work of permanent nature, therefore, respondent No. 1 had no right of continuation, but learned Labour Court had ignored this aspect of the matter. The award was perverse and based on no evidence and the services of respondent No. 1 were rightly dispensed with on the completion of work for which he was engaged as he was engaged for specific work only. On these grounds, the petitioner prayed for quashing of the award passed by the learned Labour Court. 6. Respondent No. 1 in its reply has stated that there is no infirmity with the order passed by the learned Labour Court and the same requires no interference. It has further been mentioned in the reply that respondent No. 1 was engaged as a Beldar on 03.06.1995 and he continued to work as such till September, 1998. His services were terminated illegally by the petitioner without giving any notice etc. According to the respondent, the undertaking given by him was under duress because the same was obtained by the Junior Engineer of the Department by forcibly stating that in case the undertaking was not given by him, then he would be removed from the job. As per the said respondent, he had completed 256 days in preceding 12 months from the date of his illegal termination. According to him, he had been assured by the petitioner that his services will be regularized with the passage of time. Thus, it was submitted in his reply by respondent No. 1 that the petition filed was without any merit and there was no infirmity with the award passed by the learned Labour Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents appended with the petition. 8. As per the statement of claim filed by private respondent, he served as Beldar from 17.09.1995 in Training Hostel at Manali till 20.09.1998 when his services were orally terminated without assigning any reason and without providing him any opportunity of being heard. 8. As per the statement of claim filed by private respondent, he served as Beldar from 17.09.1995 in Training Hostel at Manali till 20.09.1998 when his services were orally terminated without assigning any reason and without providing him any opportunity of being heard. According to him, he had served with the petitioner for more than five years regularly without any break and he had also completed more than 240 days in each calendar year. Thus, according to him, his termination was illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 9. In its reply filed to the statement of claim, it was mentioned by the petitioner- University that the engagement of the applicant was for casual and seasonal work under NARP, a Government of India adhoc project and that at the time of construction of training hostel at Manali, the private respondent had never completed 240 days continuously in any calendar year. Reference was also made to his undertaking given to the effect that he will not claim any seniority or regularization on account of his seasonal engagement. Since the engagement of the private respondent was work specific, therefore, no illegality was committed, according to the petitioner- University in dispensing with his services once the project was complete. 10. Learned Labour Court framed the following issues for determination on the basis of the pleadings of the parties: ?1. Whether the termination from the service of the claimant is proper and justified? OPP 2. If the above issue is proved in the affirmative, what relief of service benefits the claimant is entitled to? OPP 3. Whether the claim petition is properly constitutely for lack of nonjoinder of the parties?OPP 4. Relief. 11. It returned following findings on these issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and material placed by them on record: Issue No. 1: No. Issue No. 2: He is entitled to the relief as mentioned in the operative part of the award. Issue No. 3: No. Relief: The claim petition allowed partly per operative part of the award. 12. Learned Labour Court came to the conclusion on the basis of material on record that in fact the petitioner-University had engaged the private respondent at more than one places. As per Ex. Issue No. 3: No. Relief: The claim petition allowed partly per operative part of the award. 12. Learned Labour Court came to the conclusion on the basis of material on record that in fact the petitioner-University had engaged the private respondent at more than one places. As per Ex. RW1/B, which was the Daily Attendance Roll of Labour, the replying respondent was shown to have been engaged as daily paid labourer against the work of =Construction of Scientist Residence at R & S Seobagh BP' on June 3, 1995. Then, as per subsequent Daily Attendance Roll of Labour, the said respondent had been shown to be engaged as against the work of =Construction of Farmer's Hostel at Manali'. Further, as per the Daily Attendance Roll of Labour for the period after 21.05.1996, he was shown to have been engaged as DPL Beldar as against the work =Trainee's Hostel at Manali'. Learned Labour Court further concluded that some other Attendance Roll of the Labourers were indicative of his having been engaged against some other works. The relevant extract of the award is reproduced hereinbelow: ?….These contentions, to my thinking, do not appear to be tenable in view of the materials on record and the facts and circumstances of the case. In the Daily Attendance Roll of Labour Ex. RW1/B, which has been relied upon by the respondents, the petitioner is shown to have been engaged as DPL (daily paid labourer) as against the work =Construction of Scientist Residence at R & S Seobagh BP' on June 3, 1995. In the subsequent daily attendance rolls of labour, that is, for the periods; 21.7.1995 to 20.8.1995, 21.8.1995 to 20.9.1995; 21.9.1995 to 20.10.1995; 21.10.1995 to 20.11.1995; 21.12.1995 to 20.1.1996; 21.1.1996 to 20.2.1996; 21.2.1996 to 20.3.1996; 21.3.1996 to 20.4.1996 and 21.4.1996 to 20.05.1996, he is shown to have been engaged as against the work =Construction of Farmer's Hostel at Manali. In the daily attendance rolls of labour for the periods; 21.5.1996 to 20.6.1996; 21.9.1996 to 20.10.1996; 21.10.1996 to 20.11.1996, 21.4.1997 to 20.5.1997; 21.5.1997 to 20.6.1997; 21.06.1997 to 20.7.1997; 21.7.1997 to 20.8.1997; 21.8.1997 to 20.9.1997; 21.9.1997 to 20.10.1997 and 21.1.1998 to 20.2.1998, he is shown to have been engaged as DPL beldar as against the work =Trainees' Hostel at Manali'. In the daily attendance rolls of labour for the periods; 21.5.1996 to 20.6.1996; 21.9.1996 to 20.10.1996; 21.10.1996 to 20.11.1996, 21.4.1997 to 20.5.1997; 21.5.1997 to 20.6.1997; 21.06.1997 to 20.7.1997; 21.7.1997 to 20.8.1997; 21.8.1997 to 20.9.1997; 21.9.1997 to 20.10.1997 and 21.1.1998 to 20.2.1998, he is shown to have been engaged as DPL beldar as against the work =Trainees' Hostel at Manali'. Some other daily attendance rolls of labour for the periods from 21.2.1998 to 20.3.1998; 21.3.1998 to 20.4.1998; 21.4.1998 to 20.5.1998; 21.5.1998 to 20.6.1998; 21.6.1998 to 20.7.1998 and 21.7.1998 to 20.8.1998, are indicative of his having been engaged as against some other works. The respondents thus, on their own showing belied their claim that on June 3, 1995, the petitioner was engaged as against the work =Construction of Training Hostel at Manali', and that his services were terminated on completion of this work on August 28, 1998.? 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out that the findings so arrived at by the learned Labour Court were perverse being contrary to the material on record. This Court had called upon the learned counsel for the petitioner to demonstrate from the record that the finding of fact so arrived at by the learned Labour Court were incorrect, however, he could not do so. 14. Thus from the above, it is categorically clear that the respondent No.1 was not engaged for the work of =Construction of Training Hostel at Manali' only, but his services were being utilized at different places and for different work by the petitioner-University. It is apparent from the perusal of the award passed by the learned Labour Court that the petitioner-University had not placed any material on record justifying or substantiating its stand that the petitioner was appointed against the project work for limited period and against a specific work. During the course of arguments also, learned counsel for the petitioner could not draw my attention to any document on record from which this inference can be drawn that at the time when the services of private respondent were engaged by the petitioner-University, it had expressly intimated/informed the private respondent that his appointment will be co-terminus with the project against which he was engaged. Learned Labour Court has further held that it was evident from Ex. Learned Labour Court has further held that it was evident from Ex. RW1/A, i.e. month-wise attendance that the petitioner had worked for 256 days during the last preceding 12 months from the date he was arbitrarily removed from service. This according to the learned Labour Court entailed that before dispensing with the services of the petitioner, one month's notice ought to have been served upon the private respondent and he also was to be paid compensation as is envisaged under Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 15. With regard to the issue of undertaking given by the private respondent, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that there appears to be truth in the contention of the private respondent that he was forced to give an undertaking as the same was obtained from him by one JE Rakesh Sood forcibly under duress that he would be removed from job in case the same is not given. In my considered view also the undertaking given by the private respondent shall be of no material help to the petitioner-University, as this Court cannot lose sight of the bargaining power of a daily wage worker vis-à-vis the petitioner-University. 16. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not breach with the help of material on record any of the said findings returned by the learned Labour Court. In my considered view also, the award passed by the learned Labour Court is a just and fair award in the facts and circumstances of the Case. 17. The petitioner-University has miserably failed to prove that the private respondent was engaged against a particular project and his engagement was co-terminus with the same. Further, it has also not been able to belie the findings of the learned Labour Court that the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days in preceding 12 months from the date of his illegal termination. Therefore, it stands established that the services of respondent No. 1 were terminated by the petitioner without complying with the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further the award passed by the learned Labour Court is a well reasoned award and it has taken into consideration all aspects of the matter while granting relief in favour of the private respondent. 18. Mr. Further the award passed by the learned Labour Court is a well reasoned award and it has taken into consideration all aspects of the matter while granting relief in favour of the private respondent. 18. Mr. Verma, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has further stated that said respondent is presently also continuing to serve with the petitioner-University which is not disputed by the petitioner-University. 19. In view of the above, in my considered view, the petitioner-University has not been able to make out any case warranting any interference with the award which has been passed by the learned Labour Court. The findings arrived at by the learned Labour Court cannot be said to be incorrect nor the same can be termed to be perverse. The private respondent was successful in demonstrating that his appointment was not work specific or project specific neither it was co-terminus with any project. Therefore, the termination of the services of the petitioner without following the procedure prescribed in the Industrial Disputes Act was per se illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. This is exactly the finding which has been returned back by the learned Labour Court. Therefore, in my considered view, the present petition is liable to be dismissed as the same is without any merit. 20. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed and the award passed by the learned Labour Court is up held. No order as to costs.