( 1 ) THE Divisional Engineer Telecom, coaxial Cable Project, Rajahmundry (hereinafter referred to as "the management" for the sake of brevity) has preferred these appeals against the common order dated 23-7-1998 passed by a single judge of this Court in W. P. Nos. 4872 and 18464 of 1997 allowing W. P. No. 18464 of 1997 filed by one Mamidi Venkata Ramana (here in after referred to as "the workman" for the sake of brevity), who was terminated by the management from the post of "mazdoor", and distmissing Writ Petition no 4872 of 1995 filed by the management.

( 2 ) THE factual matrix leading to the filing of the appeals reads thus:

( 3 ) THE workman Mamidi Venkata ramana, who is the 1st respondent hi both these appeals, joined as a Mazdoor on 28-11-1985 under the appellant management and worked continuously till 1-4-1988, On 1-4-1988 the appellant-management terminated the services of the workman, retaining his juniors in service, without issuing one-month notice and without paying retrenchment compenstion The appellant-management also made fresh appointments subsequent to the termination of the workman. Despite repeated requests the management did not reinstate him into service. Therefore, he moved for conciliation and it ended in failure. The conciliation proceedings were sent to the Government of india under Section 12 (4) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 ( the Act for brevity) and the Government in turn referred the same to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication under Section 10 (l) (d) of the Act with the following terms: whether the action of the Divisional engineer Telecom, Coaxial Cable project, Rajahmundry in terminating the services of the workman is justified, if not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?

( 4 ) THE Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour court, Visakhapatnam ( the tribunal for brevity) took up the reference on file and numbered the same as I. T. I. D. No. 1 of 1995 (g ). The tribunal after considering the evidence adduced by both parties came to the conclusion that the workman worked continuously for more than one year and was illegally retrenched without following the procedure prescribed under Sec. 25-F of the Act. The tribunal further held that the workman is entitled for reinstatement without continuity of service and back wages.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the tribunal denying continuity of service and back wages, the workman preferred the writ petition vide W. P. No. 18464 of 1997 seeking a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order of the tribunal to the extent of denial of continuity of service and back wages and for a direction to the management to pay the back wages to him from 1-4-1988 till the date of his reinstatement.

( 6 ) THE management preferred W. P. No. 4872 of 1997 seeking to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the award dated 28-11-1996 passed by the tribunal in I. T. I. D. No. 1 of 1995 (g) as illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The management contended that the workman was a temporary casual Mazdoor who does not satisfy the requirement of holding or having held a civil post and secondly the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable to the Telecom Department. The management further contended that the appointment of a workman on daily wages cannot be a conduit sign for regular appointment and the tribunal while directing reinstatement of the workman committed an illegality in passing the order. The workman, however, contended that failure to award back wages is contrary to the principles laid down by various judgments of the Supreme Court and that even if the management wants to terminate his services in accordance with the guidelines issued by them from time to time, the termination should be in compliance with the provisions of the Act and not in derogation of the said provisions. The learned single Judge while passing a common order dated 23-7-1998 in both the petitions