JUDGMENT Arindam Sinha, J. Two writ petitions are tagged together and have been called on for hearing. First is WP(C) no.37460 of 2020, wherein petitioners are the management. Second is WP(C) no.5179 of 2021, where the workman is petitioner. Mr. Mishra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of the management and Mr. Dash, learned advocate for the workman. 2. Under challenge in both the writ petitions is award dated 28th April, 2020 made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court. By it reliefs in the alternative were granted to the workman. We reproduce below a passage in the award in respect of the reliefs granted. 'xx xx xx Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated above, it would be just and proper to direct the opposite parties management to reinstate the applicant workman as a Caretaker of it's Guest House/Transit Flat at Bhubaneswar along with payment of a consolidated amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lacks fifty thousand only) as a compensation towards his arrear back wages provided the job of Caretaker is lying vacant. In alternate, the applicant workman is to be paid a lump sum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacks only) as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages if the contractual job of Caretaker is not available, such compensation amount is to be paid within two months of the Notification of the award failing which, the applicant workman is entitled to interest on such amount at the rate of 7.5% (seven and half percent) per annum with effect from the date of his application i.e. 31.3.2016 till its realization. xx xx xx' 3. Mr. Mishra submits, the workman had made application under section 2-A(2) in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It could not have been entertained by the Tribunal. There were two terminations of the contractual service. First termination was by letter dated of 23rd August, 1999, of agreement dated 6th December, 1989. Pursuant thereto there was another agreement dated 8th November, 1999 entered into between his client and the workman, terminated by letter dated 31st August, 2000 as would appear from notice dated 29th September, 2000. Drawing attention to sub-section (3) in section 2-A he submits, by no stretch of imagination the application made on 31st March, 2016 could have been entertained as within three years of the last termination. Drawing attention to sub-section (3) in section 2-A he submits, by no stretch of imagination the application made on 31st March, 2016 could have been entertained as within three years of the last termination. He points out, the first termination was not disputed by the workman. 4. Without prejudice he submits, there was due termination made by said letter dated 31st August, 2000. It was dispatched to the workman by registered post with AD. The postal article was returned carrying endorsement 'The said person not staying at home, the letter is being returned'. The unserved postal article was received on 28th September, 2000. He points out, there was no requirement for his client to comply with provision under section 25-F because it being a contractual relation of service, the termination stood covered by exception (bb) under definitions section 2(oo). There thus could not have been either of the alternative reliefs directed in favour of the workman. 5. He submits further, notwithstanding the direction for alternative reliefs being illegal, there was finding in impugned award that the workman was not duly recruited. In the circumstances, the Tribunal found also that there was no vacancy. As such there could not have been direction for reinstatement and lump sum back wages to be paid at Rs. 2,50,000/-. The alternative relief of compensation at Rs. 5,00,000/- and interest is completely arbitrary. 6. Mr. Dash submits, his client approached this Court by writ petition in year 2000 challenging the termination. The writ petition was disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court on judgment dated 4th August, 2015. Thereby his client was redirected to the industrial dispute forum and accordingly his client applied under section 2-A(2). The Tribunal took into consideration time spent in prosecuting the writ petition, to exclude the same under section 14 in Limitation Act, 1963. As such his client cannot be said to have approached the Tribunal beyond the prescribed period in sub-section (3) of section 2-A. 7. On merits he submits, his client had got appointment as caretaker in the Kolkata transit house of the management. He was transferred to Bhubaneswar and thereafter wrongfully terminated from service. He had put in continuous service. To make it show otherwise, agreements were got signed by his client. On query from Court Mr. Das submits, alleged registered notice never came to his client for acceptance. 8. He was transferred to Bhubaneswar and thereafter wrongfully terminated from service. He had put in continuous service. To make it show otherwise, agreements were got signed by his client. On query from Court Mr. Das submits, alleged registered notice never came to his client for acceptance. 8. Fact regarding existence of the agreements is undisputed. We have perused the writ petitions and ascertained from appearing learned advocates that upon the first termination there is no mention in impugned order nor disclosure in the writ petitions regarding handing over charge. We notice letter dated 26th April, 1999 addressed by the Regional Manager to the Assistant Manager, in which there is mention regarding transfer of the workman. We reproduce below two paragraphs from the letter. 'xx xx xx Meanwhile, we have received a letter dated 13.4.99 along with the enclosures from Manager, Head Office requesting us to transfer the services of Sk. Abdul Majid, Caretaker, transit flat, Alipore to Bhubaneswar transit camp as a caretaker. A copy of H.O. letter dated 13.4.99 is enclosed for your ready reference. You will observe from the letter and application that H.O. has advised us to initiate/based on the recommendation of AGM (Estate). As such, we recommend further that Sk. Abdul Majid may be transferred to Bhubaneswar transit camp as caretaker from transit flat, Alipore as a replacement of Shri Arun Kumar Jana. xx xx xx' 9. We reproduce below the determination of contract clauses respectively from agreement dated 6th December, 1989 and 8th November, 1999. 'IV. DETERMINATION OF CONTRACT The Company reserves the right to terminate the services of the Caretaker by giving one month's notice or vice versa. However, in the event of the conduct or actions of the Caretaker not being found satisfactory, the Company shall have the right to terminate this contract without any notice.' 'IV- DETERMINATION OF CONTRACT The Company reserves the right to terminate the services of the Caretaker by giving one month's Notice or vice versa. However, in the event of the conduct or actions of the Caretaker not being found satisfactory, the company shall have the right to terminate this service contract of the Caretaker without any notice.' (emphasis supplied) The determination clauses in both agreements are similar if not identical. Mr. Mishra submits, his client is a statutory corporation. The Tribunal noticed in impugned award that the workman was not duly recruited. 10. Mr. Mishra submits, his client is a statutory corporation. The Tribunal noticed in impugned award that the workman was not duly recruited. 10. Keep aside the matter of recruitment we have to first deal with the maintainability issue. Sub-section (3) in section 2-A is reproduced below. '(3) The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-section (1).' In context of above prescribed period we reproduce below sub- section (2) from section 29 in Limitation Act, 1963. '(2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only insofar as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law.' (emphasis supplied) We have not been shown that there has been expressed exclusion of sections 4 to 24 in Limitation Act, 1963 by Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the circumstances, not only section 14 for exclusion of time regarding prosecution of the cause in a Court without jurisdiction is applicable for admission of the application under section 2-A(2) but also, if necessary, section 5 for condonation of any delay. There does not appear to be any illegality in finding of the Tribunal regarding maintainability of the application made to it long after the dismissal. Upon query from Court on what was decided by said judgment dated 4th August, 2015 Mr. Mishra points out from paragraph 12 therein, it was left open to opposite party no.3 in his client's writ petition to raise industrial dispute as under definitions section 2(k). Said opposite party could not have applied under section 2-A(2). Here and for the context we reproduce below paragraph 12 from said judgment dated 4th August, 2015. '12. Mishra points out from paragraph 12 therein, it was left open to opposite party no.3 in his client's writ petition to raise industrial dispute as under definitions section 2(k). Said opposite party could not have applied under section 2-A(2). Here and for the context we reproduce below paragraph 12 from said judgment dated 4th August, 2015. '12. In view of such position, if the petitioner claims that he is a workmen and entitled to be continued in service then he has to approach the Industrial Dispute Forum and more so he cannot be treated as an employee of any statutory body as his continuance is being regulated by the terms of agreement executed between the parties. For any violation thereof, remedy available under law is to approach the common law forum. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted as the writ petition is not maintainable on the basis of the nature of grievance made therein.' (emphasis supplied) 11. Our perusal of the agreements do not reveal that they were for specific period for there to be extension thereof. The first termination does not appear to have been followed through by handing over charge to bring conclusion and severance in the service. On the contrary we have evidence before us, though by an internal letter that there was a move to transfer and the workman was transferred to be caretaker in the transit house at Bhubaneswar. 12. Moving on to the second termination it would be necessary for us to reproduce first two paragraphs from said notice dated 29th September, 2000 published by the management. 'Reference is invited to our Regd. letter with A/D dated 31.08.2k addressed to Sk. Abdul Majid, S/o. Late Rashid, At-Ramkapur, PO: Sukleswar, Via: Salepur, Dist: Cuttack regarding notice of termination of contract engaging him as Caretaker of our transit flat at 6A, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar w.e.f. 30.09.2k. The above letter has been returned by the postal authority with remark 'The said person not staying at home the letter is being returned' and received by this office on 28.09.2k. xx xx xx' The termination notice was put in an envelope and dispatched by registered/speed post on 31st August, 2000. It was returned unserved on 28th September, 2000 bearing postal endorsement to effect that addressee was not staying at home. xx xx xx' The termination notice was put in an envelope and dispatched by registered/speed post on 31st August, 2000. It was returned unserved on 28th September, 2000 bearing postal endorsement to effect that addressee was not staying at home. This endorsement cannot lead to presumption of good service because and presumably, the workman, addressee of the notice, was discharging his duty as caretaker in the transit house at Bhubaneswar. It follows he was not at home in Cuttack. The endorsement is not one of the prescribed endorsements, regarding return of unserved postal articles. The postman ought to have left intimation, for the addressee to claim the article. On the article remaining unclaimed the endorsement to be made would be 'Addressee absent, intimation left. Return to sender'. We're surprised the notice was not served personally to the workman at his place of duty. Be that as it may dispatch of a notice regarding 30 days notice period by registered post on 31st August, 2000, for termination to be with effect from 30th September, 2000 cannot be accepted to be notice for the period of 30 days. Position that emerges is, the notice of termination was insufficient. As such the management cannot rely on contractual relationship and exception thereby under clause (bb) in definitions section 2 (oo). 13. We find no illegality nor perversity in impugned award. We make no direction enhancing the compensation at Rs. 5,00,000/- payable as directed in impugned award along with interest at 7.5% considering Mr. Mishra's submission that present day interest rate is way below the rate directed. 14. WP(C) no.37460 of 2020 is dismissed. 15. So far as WP(C) no.5179 of 2021 is concerned, we direct petitioner (workman) therein to forthwith approach the Tribunal for recovery in terms of the award under section 33-C(1) on his claim of compensation and interest, as directed in the award, upto 31st December, 2023 and further interest till realization. 16. The writ petition is disposed of.