JUDGMENT K.R. MOHAPATRA, J. - Mr. Banoj Patnaik, learned Counsel for the Management-petitioner and Mr. S.P.Sarangi, learned Counsel for the workmen-Opposite Party No.2. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the Management of Executive Engineer (Electrical), Bhubaneswar Electrical Division, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd., Bhubaneswar assailing the award dated 08.07.1997 (Annexure-3) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.92 of 1995 holding the termination of the workman-O.P. No.2 to be illegal and unjustified and that the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service without any back-wages. 3. Learned Counsel for the Management-petitioner submits that the workman was engaged as an NMR worker on temporary basis with effect from February, 1987. He continued as such till 30.06.1992.While continuing as such, he remained absent unauthorisedly with effect from 01.07.1992 without any intimation and did not join in the service. Since he voluntarily remained absent without any permission, there was no necessity to pass any order of termination and the workman was treated to have abandoned his service. During the period of his unauthorised absence, he had participated in Panchayat Election without intimating the Management. It is further contended that on completion of the construction work on 30.06.1989, in which the workman was engaged, the workman, along with other similarly placed NMR workers, were retrenched with effect from that date. Subsequently, the workman was re-engaged pursuant to a bipartite settlement between the Management and its employees. As such, he had not completed 240 days of continuous service on the date of his termination. However, the workman, without approaching the authority to resolve the dispute, approached the labour machinery alleging that he was refused employment without complying with the mandatory provisions of law. On failure of conciliation, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication of the reference. Learned Labour Court, most illegally holding that the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) was not complied with while terminating the services of the workman, has directed for his reinstatement. 4. Mr. Patnaik further submits that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing in the matter and the reference was adjudicated ex parte. 4. Mr. Patnaik further submits that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing in the matter and the reference was adjudicated ex parte. As such, he prayed for setting aside the impugned award under Annexure-3 and also for a direction to learned Labour Court to adjudicate the reference afresh after giving the petitioner-Management an opportunity of hearing. 5. Mr. Sarangi, learned Counsel for the Workman-opposite party No.2 vehemently opposed the submissions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He, supporting the impugned award, submits that there is no dispute to the fact that the workman-opposite party No.2 was engaged as an NMR worker with effect from February, 1987 and he continued till 30.06.1992.Although the workman along with others were terminated from service with effect from 30.06.1989, on completion of the construction work in which they were engaged as NMR workers, the workman was re-engaged in service pursuant to a bipartite settlement between the Management and its employees and the workman along with others were treated to be continuing in service for the period they were out of job. As such, the workman had completed a continuous period of 240 days in a calendar year preceding his termination. Admittedly, the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act was not followed while terminating the services of the workman. Hence the termination of the workman-opposite party No.2 has been rightly held to be illegal and unjustified for non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner-Management had not participated in the proceeding before the learned Labour Court. The Management-petitioner contended that it was not afforded with opportunity to participate in the proceeding. But, on perusal of records it is apparent that learned Labour Court had issued notice to the Management-petitioner and the representative of the Management-petitioner had appeared before learned Labour Court. No sufficient grounds have been assigned for its non-appearance before the learned Labour Court on the subsequent dates. Further on perusal of case record, it appears that the workman-O.P. No.2 was engaged as an NMR worker in February, 1987 in the construction work of the Electrical Division of the Management. He was retrenched from service with effect from 30.06.1989 on completion of the construction work. Further on perusal of case record, it appears that the workman-O.P. No.2 was engaged as an NMR worker in February, 1987 in the construction work of the Electrical Division of the Management. He was retrenched from service with effect from 30.06.1989 on completion of the construction work. However, pursuant to a bipartite settlement between the Management and its employees, the Workman-Opp. Party No.2 was re-engaged with continuity in service and had continued up to 30.06.1992.As such, the workman can be safely said to be in continuous service for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding his termination. Admittedly, the provisions under Section 25-F of the Act was not complied with while terminating the workman-O.P. No.2. Hence the termination of the workman-O.P. No.2 has been rightly held to be illegal and unjustified. 7. The workman-O.P. No.2 was engaged as an NMR-daily wage worker on daily wage basis and he continued up to 30.06.1992. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Management submits that due to restructuring of the Division, there is no scope for reinstatement of the workman-O.P. No.2, which appears to be correct. 8. Taking into consideration the nature and period of engagement of the workman as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that payment of compensation to the workman-O.P. No.2 in lieu of his reinstatement in service, would be just and appropriate. 9. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of directing the petitioner-Management to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) to the workman-O.P. No.2 within a period of six weeks hence, in lieu of his reinstatement in service, which according to us, is just and adequate to meet the ends of justice. 10. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award (Annexure-3), the writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.