JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. The award dated 11.1.2011 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Case No.258 of 2008 is under challenge whereby and where under the Tribunal has directed the Management to reinstate the workman as N.M.R. within a period of two months of the date of publication of the award in the official Gazette subject to the observation that if the Institute is running without the services of any N.M.R./D.L.R./Contractual employees, then instead of reinstatement the workman be paid a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. 2. Case of the workman as per the claim statement is that from July, 1994 till 30.6.1999 he had been working under the management Institute as an N.M.R., the management did not pay him wages for the period from March, 1998 to June, 1999, when he demanded payment of wages, the management terminated his service which is in contravention of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. Case of the management, on the other hand, is that the workman had worked from August, 1994 to 31.3.1998, thereafter stopped coming to work w.e.f. 1.4.1998, letters were issued to him asking to report for duty but he did not respond, as such the management has never denied him employment and it is for the reason provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not be applicable for the reason that he had abandoned the job voluntarily. It is the further case of the management that being Research Institute, it is not coming within the definition of industry under section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is the further case of the management that the Institute receives Government of India grant for Adhoc Research Project, all engagements made for such projects are co-terminus with the termination of the projects. The workman had been engaged in one of such projects but the Government of India did not sanction the project for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, knowing it the workman did not come to duty and raised a dispute which has culminated into the award. 4. The workman had been engaged in one of such projects but the Government of India did not sanction the project for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, knowing it the workman did not come to duty and raised a dispute which has culminated into the award. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents available on record including the award which is impugned in this writ petition, it is evident that the workman being aggrieved with the action of the management has raised a dispute, conciliation having failed, the appropriate Government has referred the dispute in exercise of power conferred under section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, i.e. “If, on consideration of the report referred to in sub-section(4), the appropriate Government is satisfied that there is a case for reference to a Board, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, it may make such reference. Where the appropriate Government does not make such a reference it shall record and communicate to the parties concerned its reasons therefore.” Industrial Tribunal while answering the reference has formulated the following two issues: (1) Whether the termination of services of Sri Babaji Charan Behera, N.M.R. by the Project Director, ADRI, Phulnakhara, Cuttack is legal and/or justified ? (2) If not, what relief Sri Behera is entitled ? 5. Issue No.1 which pertains to answering the question as to whether the termination of services of the workman, N.M.R. by the Project Director, Animal Disease Research Institute (ADRI), Phulnakhara, Cuttack is legal/justified , while answering this issue, the Industrial Tribunal has taken into consideration the documents which has been produced by the management i.e. Exts.B, C and D were never been issued to the workman to report for duty and these documents have been put by the management witness No.1 but the workman stated that these notices are created documents and none of them was served on him. Management Witness No.1 has stated that the notices were sent to the workman by ordinary post, as such there is no evidence showing that the notices were duly served on him. Ext.H is the Xerox copy of the Muster Roll for the period from March, 1995 to August, 1998 and Ext.J is the Xerox copy of the bills for payment of wages to the Attendants(Animal) working under the Management which covers the period from October, 1998 to March, 1999. Ext.H is the Xerox copy of the Muster Roll for the period from March, 1995 to August, 1998 and Ext.J is the Xerox copy of the bills for payment of wages to the Attendants(Animal) working under the Management which covers the period from October, 1998 to March, 1999. According to the management, Ext.H as well as Ext.J are copies of its Muster Rolls. In all the sheets consisting parts of Ext.H name of the workman finds placed. Ext.J has been produced to show that the name of the work did not appear in the Muster Roll during the period October, 1998 to March, 1999. From perusal of Exts. 1 to 4 and Ext.E it is evident that the workman was engaged in the project under “Systematic Control of Live-stock Diseases of National Importance” (Ext.3) which reflects that the said project was to terminate w.e.f. 31.3.1999, Ext.3 is in the form of a notice served upon the workman wherein it is mentioned that his services would stand terminated on the expiry of the contract on 31.3.1997 and in the same notice it is further mentioned that if the Government of India agreed to continue the project during the 9th Plan, the workman’s case would be again considered. Ext.4 is another notice wherein it is stated that since the period of the project was going to terminate w.e.f. 31.3.1999 all engagements under the project would terminate with the termination of the project. These documents reflect that the term of the said project was extended from time to time till 31.3.1999. Services of the workman got terminated before expiry of the term extended i.e. on 31.3.1998, as such the Industrial Tribunal has reached to conclusion that even on the basis of the documents it is clear that the workman’s service was terminated even during the subsistence period of the project work and on the basis of this reason it has reached to conclusion that there is violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It further transpires from the award that the Management has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the reference by taking plea that the management being a research Institute will not come within the meaning of industry as defined under section 2(j) and in support of the argument, judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Physical Research Laboratory –vs- K.G.Sharma, reported in 1997(II) LLJ 625(S.C.) has been relied upon. The Industrial Tribunal after taking into consideration the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court has found that the said judgment is not applicable for the reason that the management has not explained the nature of research work it is engaged in. It has not been disputed that the research work carried on by the Institute is connected with production, supply or distribution of material, goods or services which are intended for satisfying human wants and needs that it is conducting research for the benefit or use of others and that the knowledge acquired by the Institute from such research work is marketable and has commercial value, hence on the facts of this case, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Physical Research Laboratory –vs- K.G.Sharma(supra) has been distinguished and thereafter the Industrial Tribunal has reached to conclusion that the management is not coming with the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that it is an industry. 6. We after appreciating the reasons given by the Industrial Tribunal which based upon Exts.1 to 4 and it is admitted position that the workman was engaged under a project, his services had been extended time and again but during subsistence period of the project work which was to end on 31.3.1999 the workman was retrenched from service w.e.f. 31.3.1998, hence the workman was retrenched during the subsistence period of project work and as such it cannot be said that the provision of section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act will be applicable, rather according to our conscious view, the workman will be said to be on engagement and he will be said to be retrenched from service w.e.f. 31.3.1998 which was during the subsistence period of the project work which was under progress and to be ended w.e.f. 31.3.1999. Further it is admitted case that the work has got his engagement w.e.f. July, 1994 and from that date till 31.3.1998 he has rendered 240 days of continuous service and as such he will be said to be coming under the definition of retrenchment as per the definition given under the provisions of Section 2(oo) & Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence provision of section 25-F is applicable as per the requirement of provision of Section 25-F the management ought to have violated provision which is mandatory to be followed before dispensing with service. The Industrial Tribunal on this aspect of the matter has reached to the conclusion that there is violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 7. So far as issue no.2 which pertains to what relief to be given to the workman, Industrial Tribunal by putting reliance of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. –vs- Uday Narayan Panday reported in AIR 2006 SC 586 and Jagbir Singh –vs- Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3004 wherein it has been laid down that in case of violation of provision of Section 25-F, award of reinstatement will full back wages particularly in respect of daily wagers is not proper and putting reliance upon the same, the following direction has been passed. “Taking the facts and circumstances into consideration, this Tribunal directs the First Party to reinstate the second party as an N.M.R. within a period of two months of the date of publication of the Award in the Official Gazette subject to the observation that if the Institute has been running without the services of any N.M.R./ D.L.R./ Contractual employees, then instead of reinstatement the workman be paid a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only in lieu of reinstatement.” The order passed by the Industrial Tribunal directing the management to reinstate the workman subject to the condition that if the Institute is running without the services of any N.M.R./D.L.R./Contractual employees, then instead of reinstatement the workman be paid Rs.1,00,000/- compensation only in lieu of reinstatement. 8. We are conscious of the view that so far as reinstatement part is concerned, as to what relief is to be given to the workman in case of non-observance of the provision as contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 8. We are conscious of the view that so far as reinstatement part is concerned, as to what relief is to be given to the workman in case of non-observance of the provision as contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The earlier view of the Apex Court that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jagbir Singh Vrs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 327 , U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. Vrs. Uday Narain Pandey, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 479 , Uttaranchal Forest Department Corporation Vrs. M. C. Joshi, reported in (2007) 9 SCC 353 , State of M.P. Vrs. Lalit Kumar Verma, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 575, M.P. Administration Vrs. Tribhuban, reported in (2007) 9 SCC 748 , Sita Ram Vrs. Moti lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 75 , Jaipur Development Authority Vrs. Ramsahai, reported in (2006) 11 SCC 684 , G.D.A. Vrs. Ashok Kumar, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 261 and Mahboob Deepak Vrs. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, reported in (2008) 1 SCC 575 , but this view has subsequently been changed by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad Vrs. Employer I/R to Management of F.C.I., reported in AIR 2014 SC 1848 and laid down the proposition differing with the earlier proposition of automatic reinstatement in case of violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 on the analogy and reasons that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice, pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation, since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization in pursuance to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vrs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and that he cannot claim regularization and when he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose. Subsequently in the case of BSNL vrs. Bhurumal reported in AIR 2014 SC 1188 needs to be made to the paragraph-25, which is being reproduced herein below:- “25. We would, however, like to add a caveat here. There may be cases where termination of a daily wage worker is found to be illegal on the ground it was resorted to as unfair labour practice or in violation of the principle of last come first go viz. while retrenching such a worker daily wage juniors to him were retained. There may also be a situation that persons junior to him were regularized under some policy but the concerned workman terminated. In such circumstances, the terminated worker should not be denied reinstatement unless there are some other weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement. In such cases, reinstatement should be the rule and only in exceptional cases for the reasons stated to be in writing, such a relief can be denied.” 9. This settled position and finding of the Industrial Tribunal so far as issue no.2 is concerned, is to be examined, the undisputed fact in this case is that the workman was engaged under the project to be ended w.e.f. 31.3.1999 and the workman is N.M.R. Further admitted position is that there is violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad Vrs. Employer I/R to Management of F.C.I.(supra) and BSNL vrs. Employer I/R to Management of F.C.I.(supra) and BSNL vrs. Bhurumal(supra) that there will not be order of automatic reinstatement in case of violation of provisions of Section 25-F, rather order of reinstatement can only be passed as per the proposition laid down in this two cases i.e. in the case when retrenchment of workman working under regular establishment is concerned or principle of first come last go has not been followed. Industrial Tribunal has passed the award of reinstatement with the condition that if the Institute is running with N.M.R./D.L.R./Contractual employees, the workman should be reinstated but if the Institute is running without N.M.R./D.R.L./contractual employees, then instead of reinstatement compensation be given. However, the award has been passed on 11.1.2011 but the Industrial Tribunal has taken into consideration the principle that if the project is not in existence, there can be direction for reinstatement, that is the reason the Industrial Tribunal has passed order of conditional reinstatement, which according to us, has got no infirmity. 10. Learned counsel for the opposite party-workman has submitted that N.M.R./D.L.R./contractual employees are working under the management and to that effect he has filed an additional affidavit stating that one Susant Sahoo is working as Typist on contractual basis. Similarly, one Ranjan Kara is working on daily rated basis as an Attendant, countering to the same an affidavit has been filed by the management that Sri Susanta Kumar Pradhan, is not engaged on contractual basis rather he has been appointed as data entry operator since December, 2011 in the office following all the financial formalities of selection procedure of the Govt. vide letter no.74 dated 16.9.2011 along with Finance Department letter No.49134 dated 29.11.2010. So far as Ranjan Kumar Kar is concerned, he has not posted in the project or the scheme of the Institute and as such contention of the opposite party-workman has been made to the effect that N.M.R./D.L.R./contractual employee are being working and as such order of reinstatement is proper order but after going through the affidavit filed by the management Institute and reverting the claim of the workman regarding nature of appointment of S.K.Pradhan, who has been engaged not on contract basis and Sri Ranjan Kumar Kar is not working in any of the projects, hence contention of the workman is not being accepted by us. 11. 11. Learned counsel for the opposite party-workman has relied upon the judgments rendered by this Court in O.J.C. No.7501 of 2000 in the case of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation –vs- Bharat Ch.Sahoo and others, O.J.C.No.11604 of 1996 in the case of General Manager, IDCO –vs- Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others, and W.P.(C) No.8924 of 2009 in the case of the Chief Executive, Chilika Development Authority –v- Rabindra Kumar Mohapatra, the facts and circumstances of those cases are different to this case, as such these judgments having been relied upon by the workman is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 12. Learned counsel representing the Management has fairly submitted that he is ready to pay the amount of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 13. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the workman cannot be reinstated in service as has been discussed by us herein above and also in view of the legal proposition as has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad Vrs. Employer I/R to Management of F.C.I.(supra) and BSNL vrs. Bhurumal(supra). In view thereof, the award is modified by directing the management to pay compensation of Rs.1.00 lakhs only in lieu of reinstatement. Accordingly, the award is modified with the observation and directions passed herein above. 14. Before par with the order it is relevant to pass appropriate order in connection with the wages to be paid to the workman in view of the provision of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 since the award has been kept in abeyance vide order dated 15.11.2012 and this Court has further directed vide order dated 30.11.2014 by passing the following order: “xxx This Misc.Case has been filed for clarification of order dated 8.4.2013, whereby this Court has directed for compliance of Section 17(B) of the I.D.Act. In obedience to the said order payment has been made to the opposite party-workman at the rate of Rs.30- per day for 26 days in a month till 10.04.2013. After 10.04.2013 payment has been stopped. From the statement of calculation furnished by the petitioner i.e. Project Coordinator Animal Disease Research Institute Phulnakhara Cuttack it is found that payment has been made to the opposite party-workman at the rate of Rs.30- per day as that was the rate of minimum wage at the relevant time. After 10.04.2013 payment has been stopped. From the statement of calculation furnished by the petitioner i.e. Project Coordinator Animal Disease Research Institute Phulnakhara Cuttack it is found that payment has been made to the opposite party-workman at the rate of Rs.30- per day as that was the rate of minimum wage at the relevant time. Now admittedly the minimum wage has been enhanced. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties the petitioner is directed to pay minimum wages as prescribed by the State as on date to the opposite party-workman and if the petitioner succeeds in the writ application the differential enhanced amount of wages shall be refunded by the opposite party-workman. As refund is a condition and the opposite party-workman is a poor man he should see that the differential enhanced wages be kept in a Fixed Deposit in a Nationalised Bank to be appropriated only after disposal of the writ application. The petitioner shall go on paying in terms of Section- 17(B) of the I.D. Act till disposal of the writ application. The current payment of enhanced wages be paid with effect from 10.04.2013 and the differential amount from the date of the award till 10.04.2013 be kept in a Fixed Deposit. The Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of. xxx” Contention of the learned counsel representing the workman is that arrear wages has not been paid and as such proper direction may be given to the management to pay the entire arrear dues as per the order passed by this Court on 30.10.2014. This submission of learned counsel for the opposite party-workman has not been disputed by learned counsel representing the Management and as such the Management is directed to disburse the entire arrears of dues which the workman is entitled to get in view of the calculation having been made under the provision of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, Cases Referred : BSNL vrs. Bhurumal reported in AIR 2014 SC 1188 Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation –vs- Bharat Ch.Sahoo and others, O.J.C. No.7501 of 2000 Chief Executive, Chilika Development Authority –v- Rabindra Kumar Mohapatra, W.P.(C) No.8924 of 2009 General Manager, IDCO –vs- Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others, O.J.C.No.11604 of 1996 G.D.A. Vrs. Ashok Kumar, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 261 Hari Nandan Prasad Vrs. Employer I/R to Management of F.C.I., reported in AIR 2014 SC 1848 Jagbir Singh Vrs. Ashok Kumar, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 261 Hari Nandan Prasad Vrs. Employer I/R to Management of F.C.I., reported in AIR 2014 SC 1848 Jagbir Singh Vrs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 327 Jagbir Singh –vs- Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3004 Jaipur Development Authority Vrs. Ramsahai, reported in (2006) 11 SCC 684 , Mahboob Deepak Vrs. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, reported in (2008) 1 SCC 575 M.P. Administration Vrs. Tribhuban, reported in (2007) 9 SCC 748 Physical Research Laboratory –vs- K.G.Sharma, reported in 1997(II) LLJ 625(SC) State of M.P. Vrs. Lalit Kumar Verma, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 575 State of Karnataka Vrs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 Sita Ram Vrs. Moti lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 75 U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. –vs- Uday Narayan Panday reported in AIR 2006 SC 586 U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. Vrs. Uday Narain Pandey, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 479 Uttaranchal Forest Department Corporation Vrs. M. C. Joshi, reported in (2007) 9 SCC 353 1947. With the above observation and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.