Arijit Pasayat, J.

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the `ONGC) calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court, Agartala Bench, dismissing the writ appeal filed by the appellants and thereby affirming order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition (Civil Rule No. 144/1992).

2. Factual background in a nutshell is as follows:

In May, 1992 respondent filed a writ petition before the Guwahati High Court claiming that he had been working as casual worker in ONGC since November, 1982 with intermittent lay offs and but for such intermittent lay offs which were deliberate, he would have worked for more than 240 days and in any event during the period 1989-90 and 1990-91 he had worked continuously for more than 240 days. It was averred that from 2.12.1984 to 10.6.1985 he had worked as an Automobile Mechanic Helper which established that he is a skilled mechanic and entitled to the said post on a regular basis. It was further claimed that on 10.1.1992 he made a representation/demand seeking regularization in the post of Automobile Mechanic but the same was rejected by communication dated 30.4.1992. Respondent challenged the said decision in a Writ Petition (Civil Rule No. 144/1992). In the writ petition, prayer was made to quash the said communication and for a direction to absorb him in the regular post of Automobile Mechanic with effect from November, 1982 with all incidental benefits. Counter-affidavit was filed by the appellants denying the claim of the respondent that he had been engaged for 240 days. Respondent filed further affidavit stating that he was called for interview for the post of Junior Security Guard (which was open only to contingent workers who had completed 240 days service in a year) which substantiated his claim of having worked for more than 240 days.

3. Appellants further stand was that during the pendency of the writ petition, in December, 2000, demand was raised by several unions for reinstatement for 340 workers of the 180 days category including respondent. Name of the respondent figured in the list of 340 workers at serial No. 88. Conciliation was held and settlement was arrived at on 27/28.1.2001. As per the settlement the contingent workers (180 days category) were entitled to be re-engaged only for 2000-2001 field season, and on completion of 2000-2001 field season, they should be disengaged with one time lump sum terminal benefit payment calculated at Rs.3500/- per field season for the continuous past service. Affidavit was filed before the High Court bringing the said settlement on record.

4. On 6.9.2001 learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the respondent had acquired the right not to be terminated without following provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the `Act ) and further directed absorption against the vacant post subject to qualifying eligibility as prescribed by the applicable service law/recruitment rules. It was held that the settlement was not applicable to the respondent as he denied to be a member of the union. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the settlement is not applicable to the respondents case. He accepted the respondents claim of having completed continuous period of 240 days in preceding twelve months. The said order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the appellants in Writ Appeal. Alongwith the Appeal Memo, the appellants filed several documents in support of their contention that respondent had not worked for 240 days. During the course of hearing, Division Bench of the High Court directed the appellants to file some documents. In response to it, certain documents were filed in July, 2004. The Division Bench, however, did not consider the additional documents filed by the appellants on the ground that they could not be permitted to be produced at appellate stage. It dismissed the writ appeal primarily