JUDGMENT

SINGH, J.:— Special leave to appeal is granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Karnataka dismissing the respondents, writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of termination of service on the ground that it was violative of S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3. Briefly the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant was selected for appointment as Conductor in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation constituted under the Transport Act, 1950, his name was placed on the select list prepared by the Selection Committee constituted under the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulation 1982. He was not given a regular appointment but he was appointed to work as conductor in temporary vacancy. He continued to work for a period of more than 240 days. While he was working as conductor his services were terminated by the Order dt. 2-4/5 of 1985 on the ground of his being found unsuitable for the post. The termination order further directed that the appellant would forfeit his chance for appointment in terms of selection and his name shall stand deleted from the select list. The appellant challenged the validity of termination order before the High Court of Karnataka by means of a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution on the ground that the order of termination was void and illegal for the non-compliance of S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A learned single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka rejected the petition holding that the order of termination was made in terms under which employment was given to him and it did not amount to retrenchment in view of S. 2(oo)(bb) of the Act.

4. Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act provides that 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 he has been paid retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days average pay for completing a year of service or any part thereof in excess of 6 months. S. 25F was designed by the Parliament to safeguard the interest of employees. The statutory requirement of payment of compensation is a condition precedent for the retrenchment of a workman and any termination without payment would make the retrenchment order invalid and inoperative, as has been held by this Court in State Bank of India v. N. Sundara Money, AIR 1976 SC 1111, Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala, AIR 1980 SC 1219; Mohan Lal v. Management, B. E., AIR 1981 SC 1253 and Management, K. S. R. T. C. v. M. Baraiah, AIR 1983 SC 1320.

5. S. 2(oo) defines retrenchment which means the termination by the employer of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include (a) voluntary retirement of workman; or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of an employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf or (c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill health. By the amending Act 49 of 1984 a new Cl. (bb) was added to S. 2(oo). The amended provision runs as under :

2(oo) "retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include -

(a) and (b) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

"(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein, or."

6. The High Court held that since the appellants contract for employment contained a stipulation that his services could be terminated at any time, the termination did not amo