JUDGMENT alok aradhe, J. - In this writ petition preferred under article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the award dated 22.05.2020 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, by which the tribunal has held that the action of the petitioner in terminating the services of the Respondent is illegal as the same is in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 and has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. 2. Facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the respondent was appointed as a Sepoy on temporary basis on 04.08.1998 under the provisions of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions, 1993. In clause (6) of the terms and conditions of the employment, the appointment was provided to the petitioner on temporary basis and was to come to an end any time prior to the period for which the petitioner was appointed without assigning any cause. 3. By an order dated 06.12.2010, the services of the respondent were terminated with immediate effect on the ground that he remained unauthorizedly absent on 21 occasions for a period from 06.10.2003 to 03.05.2010. The respondent raised an industrial dispute before the assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) under the Industrial Disputes act. The Central Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the tribunal. The tribunal recorded the evidence of the parties and heard the arguments. The tribunal by an award dated 22.05.2010 held that the respondent had rendered services for a period of 12 years and his services were terminated in violation of Section 25F of the act. However, taking into account the nature of employment of the respondent, the tribunal directed that a lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- be paid to the respondent. In the aforesaid factual background, this petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent remained unauthorizedly absent for 21 occasions for a period from 06.10.2003 to 03.10.2010 and despite 12 warning letters being issued to him, the Respondent has remained unauthorizedly absent from 04.05.2010 till 06.12.2010 i.e., the date of termination of the services. It is further submitted that the services of the respondent can be terminated at any time during his employment without holding an enquiry as he was a temporary employee. 5. It is further submitted that the services of the respondent can be terminated at any time during his employment without holding an enquiry as he was a temporary employee. 5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. admittedly, the respondent was engaged as a Sepoy against a temporary vacancy. However, it is not in dispute that he continued in the employment of the petitioner till 06.12.2010 till his services were terminated. Section 25F of the act reads as under: 25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-- (a) the workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 2 for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3 or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette. 6. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that services of a workman who has worked for more than a year has to be terminated subject to fulfillment of conditions prescribed in Clause (a) and (b) to Section 25(F) of the act. In the instant case, the respondent has served as a Sepoy in the establishment of the petitioner for a period of 12 years, though, the respondent has remained unauthorizedly absent on several occasions during his tenure. However, it is relevant to note that there is no material on record to demonstrate that he has served continuously for a period of one year. Therefore, Section 25(F) of the act as applicable in the instant case, which has admittedly not been followed. The tribunal has therefore, rightly held that termination of services of the petitioner services of the petitioner is illegal. Therefore, Section 25(F) of the act as applicable in the instant case, which has admittedly not been followed. The tribunal has therefore, rightly held that termination of services of the petitioner services of the petitioner is illegal. The tribunal by taking into account the nature of employment of the respondent, which is temporary in the nature has rightly declined the relief of reinstatement in service and has accordingly directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of compensation. The order passed by the tribunal neither suffers from any infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this court in exercise of power under article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, we do not find any merit in this writ petition, the same fails and is hereby dismissed.