JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioners, and Mr. Gadhia, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. In present petition, the petitioner-Ahmedabad Telecom District has challenged award dated 11.7.2000 passed by learned Central Industrial Tribunal in Reference (ITC) No. 44 of 1998 whereby learned Tribunal directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent on his original post and to pay 25% back-wages for the period from 1.1.1997 to the date of award. 3. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record and from the award and from the submissions by learned advocates that, the respondent herein i.e. original claimant raised industrial dispute with the allegation that the opponent employer terminated his service illegally and arbitrarily and without any fault on his part. He further alleged that the opponent employer committed breach of statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. He alleged that though he had worked regularly and continuously from February 1987 and had worked for more than 240 days, the opponent employer terminated his service without payment of compensation and notice pay and subsequently, when the opponent employer engaged other workers, the opponent employer did not call him for work. With such allegations, the claimant demanded that he should be reinstated in service with all benefits. 3.1 The opponent employer i.e. present petitioner opposed the reference and the demand. The opponent employer contended, in its written statement, that the claimant was engaged for casual/project work on ad-hoc and temporary and on daily wage basis. The petitioner contended that the claimant was engaged as daily wage labourer for a Project viz. erection of polls and laying telephone lines at Dholka and that after the work was completed, the claimant was disengaged and that therefore, the allegations by the claimant are baseless and unjustified. The opponent employer also opposed the reference on the ground that the claimant raised dispute after about 6 to 7 years and therefore, in view of such delay, the reference should not be entertained. It was also contended that in view of the fact that the claimant was engaged for specified work and limited period, provision under Section 25F would not be applicable, and therefore also, the claim of the claimant and his demand are misconceived and unsustainable. It was also contended that in view of the fact that the claimant was engaged for specified work and limited period, provision under Section 25F would not be applicable, and therefore also, the claim of the claimant and his demand are misconceived and unsustainable. On the premise that the claimant was engaged for particular project i.e. specified work and for limited period, the opponent employer opposed the demand for reinstatement and other benefits and requested the learned Tribunal to reject the reference. 3.2 Upon conclusion of pleadings by both sides, learned Tribunal recorded documentary and oral evidence of the claimant and the opponent employer. When the parties closed their evidence, learned Tribunal heard rival submissions and after considering submissions of both sides and material available on record, learned Tribunal passed the impugned award. 4. Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Tribunal has ignored the attendance record of the claimant and that the learned Tribunal also ignored the fact that the claimant was engaged for project work i.e. specified work of limited duration and that therefore, Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act would not be applicable. He also submitted that from the attendance record which was placed before the learned Tribunal, it was established that the claimant had not worked for 240 days either during preceding 12 months or during any other year. He also submitted that the claimant raised industrial dispute only as an afterthought and with a view to extracting idle wages inasmuch as for almost 6 to 7 years, he did not take any steps against alleged termination and suddenly after about 6 to 7 years, the claimant came out with the dispute and demanded that he should be reinstated. However, learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the said fact and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent claimant and that the said direction is unjustified and arbitrary. Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that, actually, in view of provision under clause (bb) of Section 2(oo), the disengagement of the claimant would not fall within purview of the term "retrenchment" and that therefore, Section 25F would not be applicable. Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that, actually, in view of provision under clause (bb) of Section 2(oo), the disengagement of the claimant would not fall within purview of the term "retrenchment" and that therefore, Section 25F would not be applicable. Besides this, in view of the fact that the claimant had not worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months, even otherwise, any question of application of Section 25F would not arise and in light of the provision under Clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) coupled with the fact that the claimant was engaged for project work, provision of Section 25G and Section 25H will also not be applicable. Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that learned Tribunal unfortunately, failed to appreciate the said contention and the factual position, passed impugned direction without having regard the evidence and the factual position which emerged from the documentary and oral evidence. 5. Mr. Gadhia, learned advocate for the opponent i.e. original claimant opposed the submissions and the petition. He submitted that learned Tribunal has not committed any error and the findings record by the learned Tribunal are based on evidence which are available on record. He submitted that findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are neither perverse nor arbitrary and, therefore, the findings recorded by learned Tribunal do not warrant any interference. He submitted that the claimant established before the learned Tribunal that provision under Section 25F were attracted and applicable in this case, however, his service was terminated without payment of notice pay and without payment of retrenchment compensation and that, therefore, the termination was illegal. Mr. Gadhia further submitted that after examining the evidence available on record, learned Tribunal accepted the case of the claimant and passed the impugned award which does not suffer from any infirmity and, therefore, the petition may be rejected. 6. I have considered submission by learned advocate for the original claimant and opponent employer i.e. present petitioner. I have also considered material available on record and the impugned award. 7. It is pertinent that the claimant himself, during his deposition (cross-examination) admitted that he was engaged as casual labourer. 7.1 He also accepted and admitted that he did not have any evidence to support the claim that he was engaged as permanent workman. I have also considered material available on record and the impugned award. 7. It is pertinent that the claimant himself, during his deposition (cross-examination) admitted that he was engaged as casual labourer. 7.1 He also accepted and admitted that he did not have any evidence to support the claim that he was engaged as permanent workman. 7.2 During his cross-examination, the claimant also admitted and accepted that he used to get work only when the work was available and that he was paid salary only for days on which work was assigned to him. 7.3 The claimant also admitted during his cross-examination that after December, 1989 he was disengaged. The claimant also admitted during his cross-examination that he does not have personal knowledge as to whether any persons junior to him was engaged after his service was discontinued. 8. On the other hand, the witness of present petitioner asserted before the learned Tribunal during his deposition that the claimant was engaged in February, 1986 for specific project. He submitted that at the relevant time the work related to laying telephone line near Dholka was in progress and the claimant was engaged for the said project work, more particularly, in the work of erecting poles and laying telephone lines. 8.1 The said witness of the Petitioner also asserted that upon completion of the work, the claimant was disengaged along with other persons who were engaged in the said project on ad hoc and daily wage basis. 8.2 The witness of the petitioner also claimed during his deposition that factually the claimant had virtually stopped reporting for duty after December, 1986 and thereafter he came for work only for few days and that too intermittently and sporadically. 8.3 The witness of the petitioner also claimed that during the period from 1986 to 1989, the claimant did not work for 240 days. 8.4 During the cross-examination of the witness of the petitioner any contradiction with regard to the evidence in chief-examination could not be extracted by the claimant except that the witness of the petitioner clarified that the work related to laying telephone line is now outsourced and the department is not engaging any daily wager or casual worker for such purpose. 9. 9. From the deposition of the claimant and from the deposition of the witness of the petitioner, it has emerged that the claimant was engaged for specific project work of laying telephone line near Dholka and that during the period when the said work continued, the claimant worked with the petitioner on ad hoc and daily wage basis. 9.1 In this view of the matter, the learned Tribunal ought to have examined the case of the claimant in light of the provision contained in Clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act. 9.2 Further, on reading the award it comes out that the learned Tribunal failed to examine the case in light of the said provision and learned Tribunal proceeded on the premise that in present case provision under Section 25F would be attracted and applicable. 10. It is relevant to mention that after examining the attendance record which was placed before the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal found that the claimant had worked for 82 days in 1986, for 65 days in 1987, for 273 days in 1988 and for 178 days in 1989. Learned Tribunal also appears to have accepted the claimant's allegation that his service was discontinued with effect from 01.01.1990. 11. In this view of the matter, when the findings recorded by learned Tribunal are taken into account then it would come out that during 1989 i.e. preceding 12 months, the claimant had not worked for 240 days and undisputedly he had worked for only 178 days. 11.1 Even if the evidence recorded by learned Tribunal that the claimant had worked for 273 days in 1988 are accepted then also the fact that the claimant failed to establish that he worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months will continue to stare in the face of the claimant. 12. For invoking and applying provision under Section 25F the claimant would be obliged to establish that (a) he had worked for 12 months and (b) that he had worked for more than 240 days in preceding 12 months. 12.1 In present case, the claimant had not worked for 240 days in 1989 and even according to the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal he had worked only for 178 days during 1989 (i.e. during preceding 12 months) even otherwise the provision under Section 25F would not be applicable. 12.1 In present case, the claimant had not worked for 240 days in 1989 and even according to the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal he had worked only for 178 days during 1989 (i.e. during preceding 12 months) even otherwise the provision under Section 25F would not be applicable. 12.2 Thus, in light of the fact that in present case the claimant was engaged for specific project (viz. laying telephone line near Dholka) his case would be covered by Clause bb of Section 2(oo). Further, in view of the fact that claimant's case would fall under clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act and in light of the fact that the claimant had not worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months, provision 25F would not be applicable in present case and the learned Tribunal committed substantive error in applying conditions prescribed under Section 25F of the Act to the case of the claimant and in holding that the present petitioner committed breach of Section 25F when it discontinued the service of claimant without payment of retrenchment compensation and Notice pay. 13. It is apparent even on plain reading of the award that learned Tribunal lost sight and did not examine the case in light of the provision under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. 14. The documents placed on record would demonstrate and establish that the claimant was engaged for the specific work i.e. project work at Dholka. 14.1 In that view of the matter the case of the claimant ought to have been examined and evaluated and analyzed in light of the provision under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. 15. Besides this, the learned Tribunal also lost sight and ignored the fact that the claimant had not worked for 240 days in 1989 and that therefore the disengagement of the claimant with effect from 01.01.1990 (according to his own allegation) could not have been invalidated on the ground that in 1988 the claimant had worked for 273 days. The said Section 25F r/w. Section 25B postulates that the attendance of claimant which should be considered is preceding 12 months and not any year or any span/phase of any 12 months. 15.1 For all these reasons, the findings and conclusion recorded by learned Tribunal cannot be sustained. 16. The said Section 25F r/w. Section 25B postulates that the attendance of claimant which should be considered is preceding 12 months and not any year or any span/phase of any 12 months. 15.1 For all these reasons, the findings and conclusion recorded by learned Tribunal cannot be sustained. 16. At this stage, it is relevant to note that having regard to the fact that though the case of the claimant would be covered under Clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act and even otherwise in view of the fact that since he had not worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months, disengagement of the claimant cannot be invalidated on the ground of breach of Section 25F. However, having regard to the fact that the claimant had worked for few days in 1986-87 as well as for 173 days in 1988 the Court considered it appropriate to pay lump- sum compensation to the claimant. The Learned advocate for the petitioner, in response to the suggestion by the Court after consulting the competent officer informed the Court that the petitioner is ready to pay reasonable amount (between Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 20,000/-) towards lump-sum compensation. 16.1 In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that though the award passed by learned Tribunal is erroneous and defective and the final conclusion recorded by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable in view of the fact that learned Tribunal failed to examine the case in light of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and also because the learned Court also failed to appreciate important fact viz. that the claimant had not worked for 240 days in immediately preceding 12 months, the direction to reinstate the claimant with 25% back-wages could not have been passed. The impugned award for these and above discussed other reasons, is not sustainable & deserves to be set aside and instead of impugned directions, it would be just and reasonable to award lump-sum compensation to the claimant. 17. In light of foregoing discussion and for aforesaid reasons, impugned direction deserves to be set aside. However, having regard to the fact that the claimant had actually worked with the petitioner during 1986 to 1989, the Court is of the view that lump-sum compensation in sum of Rs. 20,000/- may be awarded to the claimant. 17. In light of foregoing discussion and for aforesaid reasons, impugned direction deserves to be set aside. However, having regard to the fact that the claimant had actually worked with the petitioner during 1986 to 1989, the Court is of the view that lump-sum compensation in sum of Rs. 20,000/- may be awarded to the claimant. Therefore, the following order is passed: (a) In light of foregoing discussion and for reasons mentioned above, the award passed by-learned Tribunal deserve to be set aside. Consequently, the award is set aside. (b) However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for reasons mentioned above, the claimant is granted Rs. 20,000/- by way of lump-sum compensation and ex-gratia amount. (c) The petitioner shall pay the amount as lump-sum compensation, by way of ex-gratia payment, to the claimant as expeditiously as possible preferably within six (6) weeks from receipt of Certified Copy of this order. 18. With the aforesaid clarification and direction, the petition is partly allowed and Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Petition Partly Allowed.