( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the Management) has sought for a writ of certiorari seeking quashing of the impugned Award dated 15th may, 1990 passed by Shri G. P. Mittal, Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. VII. Tis hazari, Delhi holding that the respondent No. 1 (herinafter called the Workman) had not himself abandoned the employment but his services were terminated by the Management which was illegal as well as unjustified and consequently the Workman was held to be entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity in service.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that vide notification No. F. 24 (1405)/76-Lab. dated 17. 1. 1977, the Secretary (Labour), Delhi Administration made areference to the Labour Court to settle the dispute between the Management and the Workman about the termination of services of the Workman. Reference was couched in the following language:-

"whether termination of service of Shri Khacheru is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

( 3 ) IN his statement of claim, the Workman has alleged that he was in employment of the Management since 1. 1. 1970 as a daily rated monthly paid muster roll employee and his services have been illegally terminated in 1974. However, in defence, the Management has stated that the petitioner has himself abandoned the job without any information or prior permission. He worked as a muster roll employee in the year 1972 for a period of 10 days only. In the year 1974 he absented himself and did not return for duty. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed by the Labour Court and one of the issues, namely. Issue No. 4 was in the following terms:

"4. Whether the services of workman were terminated or he abandoned?"

( 4 ) AFTER holding enquiry into the matter, the Labour Court came to the following findings which are relevant for determining the point in controversy between the parties;

(I) That the Workman has not worked with the Management for 240 days in a year at the time of his alleged termination and, therefore, he would not be entitled to any relief for payment of any retrenchment compensation and for protection under Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(II) That the Workman has not abandoned the employment himself but his services were in fact terminated by the Management, which was illegal and unjustified. As a matter of fact, the Workman could not attend his duty as he had fallen sick for certain period for which he has produced the medical certificate on 4. 10. 1974 along with fitness certificate and an application for leave. But the Management refused duty as well as medical certificate and fitness certificate were not accepted by the Management.

(III) That the persons who were juniors to the Workman are still working with the Management and some of them have already been declared to be permanent and, therefore, the termination of the Workman is in violation of Section 25 G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

( 5 ) MR. Luthra, learned counsel for the Management, vehemently contends that the findings of the Labour Court are bad as the Workman has not put in services for a period of one year and the Workman, therefore, cannot complain for retrenchment compensation not being in consonance with Section 25 F of the Act. In support of his submission he has relied upon Mohan Lal Vs. The Management of M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd. (AIR 1981 SC 123 ). He has also cited certain other authorities as well to substantiate his point The principle laid down in Mohan Lal s case (supra) has been statutorily recognised under Section 25f of the Act. , It has been further laid down that both on principle and on precedent it must be held that Section 25 B (2) comprehends a situation where a workman is not