JUDGMENT :

This intra Court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 has been filed against the order dated 19.11.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge by which writ petition preferred by the appellant has been partly allowed and the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) has been modified and the appellant has been held entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-instead of relief of reinstatement in services.

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant was employed as a messenger in the establishment of the respondent initially from 25.03.1982 for a period of 91 days and on 23.06.1982 the services of the appellant were terminated by the management. The appellant again was appointed as messenger w.e.f. 19.07.1994 till 27.03.1996 and on the aforesaid date, the services of the appellant were terminated by the management. It is the case of the appellant that since he has worked for a period of more than 240 days in each of the calendar year as defined under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), the termination amounts to retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Act as there was non-compliance with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. The Central Government, under Section 10 of the Act, referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal:

"Whether the contention of the workman Shri M.Kannabiran that the action of the management of State Bank of India in refusing employment to him amounts to violation of Section 25(F), 25(G) and 25(H) of the ID Act, 1947 and the same amounts to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the said Act, is legal and justified? If so, to what relief the same workman is entitled?"

3. The management, in the counter statement, inter alia, admitted that the appellant was employed at its overseas branch as temporary messenger for 91 days on purely temporary basis against a leave vacancy of a permanent employee. It was further pleaded that the appellant was neither selected nor appointed for any permanent post and for the appointment to the permanent post, the management is governed by the Bipartite Settlement dated 17.11.1987 which does not provide for absorption of service of a temporary workman. It was denied that at any point of time the appellant had worked for a period of 240 days and in any case, did not work for a period of 240 days within a period of 12 calendar months. It was further averred that services of the appellant was terminated as the post was filled up after recruitment and the same cannot be said to be a case of either termination or retrenchment.

4. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence of the parties, by an award dated 16.06.2006, on the basis of certificates namely Ex.W7 and W8 issued by the Branch Manager of the respondent, held that between the period from July 1994 to June 1995, the appellant was in continuous service of the management for a period of 287 days and therefore, the appellant fulfilled the requirement of Section 25B of the Act. It was further held that admittedly the services of the appellant were terminated without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 25F of the Act and therefore, the action of the respondent in terminating the services of the appellant was held to be illegal. The Tribunal further held that keeping in view the temporary nature of services rendered by the appellant and the period for which the appellant rendered the service, as well as on account of the fact that the appellant was provided employment by the Bank subject to availability of the work, it was held that the ends of justice would be met if the appellant is paid compensation to the extent of Rs.60,000/-on account of full and final settlement of his claim in lieu of his claim for reinstatement, backwages and consequential benefits.

5. The appellant assailed the validity of