JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J.—

1.Leave granted.

2.The workmen who secured an award for reinstatement with full back-wages at the hands of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow (in short “Tribunal-cum-Labour Court”) and lost before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad are the appellants before this Court.

3.The above appeal is directed against the order dated 08.08.2005 whereby the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed the batch of writ petitions filed by the Union of India - Ministry of Telecommunication, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and quashed the award passed by the Tribunal-cum-Labour Court.

4.Though the Tribunal-cum-Labour Court passed a separate but identical order holding that the termination of services of the workmen concerned are void and ordered reinstatement with full back-wages, the Union of India and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited challenged the same before the High Court by filing separate writ petitions.

5.The High Court, by adverting to the facts in I.D. No. 39 of 2001, namely, Shri Brijbhushan Yadav vs. The General Manager, Telecom Department, accepted the stand of the department and quashed the award therein. Similar orders have been passed in all other connected writ petitions.

6.We heard Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. R.D. Agrawala, learned senior counsel for the respondents.

7.In view of the order to be passed hereunder, we are of the view that it is unnecessary to refer all the factual matrix as stated by the parties. On the basis of the request made by the workman, the Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the industrial dispute between Shri Brijbhushan Yadav and the General Manager, Telecom Department, Varanasi for adjudication. The reference referred for adjudication is as under:

“Whether the action of the Management of Telecom Department in terminating the services of Shri Brijbhushan Yadav w.e.f. 1.6.1999 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

According to the workman, he was initially appointed as Security Guard with the Telecom Department, Varanasi(East), Varanasi w.e.f. 1.10.1996 and he was performing his duties till his services were terminated w.e.f. 1.6.1999. There was no genuine contract labour system in vogue with the Telecommunication Department to engage security guards. The so-called security agency i.e. M/s Security and Protection Services was a mere name lender and almost a broker or agent of Telecommunication Department for procuring labour and was not a registered licensee contractor. He worked for more than 240 days in preceding twelve calendar months prior to his termination. His termination without notice or retrenchment compensation is contrary to provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and he is entitled to reinstatement with back-wages.

8.According to the employer Telecommunication Department, there was temporary need of security guards for safety of its assets, hence, an agreement was signed between M/s Security and Protection Services, Varanasi and the General Manager(East), Varanasi on 10.9.1996. Under the terms of the contract, the workman was supplied by the said security services, to perform work of security guard and he was performing duties of security guard since 1.10.1996. In order to protect the articles and equipments of telecom department, the Telecom Department had entered into a contract with M/s Security and Protection Services on the terms and conditions mutually agreed upon. The same was duly registered by the Labour Commissioner. The agreement was for fixed term, which expired. The workman was not taken as an employee of the Telecom Department nor had worked for more than 240 days and so, the notice or retrenchment compensation as provided under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not applicable.

9.The Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, after