HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.14873 of 2000 ORDER: The District Social Welfare Officer, Srikakulam questions the award of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D.No.134 of 1997 dated 21.2.2000 whereby the Tribunal directed the petitioner herein to reinstate the 1st respondent – workman without back wages but with notional seniority at the time of fixation of his pay. Before the Tribunal the respondent – workman filed Ex.W.1 to show that he worked for 289 days from 1.9.1991 to 25.8.1992 with the management of the Government Boys Hostel. On the other hand M.W.1, the Junior Assistant, deposed, based on Ex.M.1, that the respondent – workman had worked only for 173 days. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the respondent – workman had actually worked for 284 days, and not 173 days as contended by the management. The relevant portion of the award reads as under: “Ex.M.1 shows that the workman worked 173 days with the management with the spells from 1.9.91 to 30.9.91 for 30 days and 6 days from 1.10.91 to 6.10.91, 13 days from 18.10.91 to 31.10.91, 30 days from 1.11.91 to 30.11.91, 30 days from 1.12.91 to 31.12.91, 22 days from 1.1.92 to 22.1.92, 28 days from 1.2.92 to 28.2.92, 30 days from 1.3.92 to 31.3.92, 23 days from 2.4.92 to 24.4.92, 17 days from 15.6.92 to 30.6.92 and 30 days in July 1992 and 25 days from 1.8.92 to have worked. If entire period even as per this calculation is proper calculation is made it comes to 284 days but not 173 days as stated by the management. So prima facie in the absence of any conditions in giving appointment purely on temporary basis till regular candidates are appointed is true, it has to be taken that the workman has worked more than 240 days in a period of one year as required under Section 25B of the I.D. Act. Hence admittedly the workman cannot be removed without following the procedure under section 25 F and there are no conditions proved by the management to come under one of the exception of Sec.2(oo) to deny the benefits to the workman.” Having found that the workman’s retrenchment was illegal, the Tribunal considered the fact that he had kept quiet from 1992 onwards till he filed the petition under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short ‘the Act) in the year 1997 and, therefore, denied him back wages. The provisions of Section 25-F are attracted on a workman completing 240 days of service in the 12 month period preceding his retrenchment, and the workman who has put in 240 days of continuous service during this 12 months period, is entitled for protection of Section 25-F of the Act. The finding of fact as recorded by the Tribunal in the present case is that the respondent – workman had completed 284 days of service. As a result the respondent – workman is entitled for the protection under Section 25-F of the Act. The condition precedent, for termination of a workman, under Section 25-F of the Act has not been complied with in the case on hand. As the respondent – workman’s termination is without compliance with the conditions prescribed under Section 25-F of the Act, his retrenchment is illegal. The Award of the Tribunal does not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of the record necessitating interference in certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ___________ 22-7-2010 asp