The main legal point established in the judgment is that continuous employment as a daily rated worker for a considerable period of time renders the termination of services illegal under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

MUKUL MUDGAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal challenges the order dated 19. 10. 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge upholding the Award dated 30th April 2004 of the central Government Industrial Tribunal (`tribunal') holding that the termination of the services of the respondent was illegal as it was done without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('i. D. Act' ). The tribunal had recorded the following findings:"from the evidence on record, I find that the workman worked continuously w. ef. 20. 8. 1990 to 16. 9. 1993 in the direct control of Dy. Director (Horticulture and other concerned officers of the Department of CPWD which go to more than 240 days in every year and admittedly prior to termination of his services, no notice, or notice pay and payments of compensation was given to him. It clearly goes to show that the services were terminated in clear violation of Section 25-F of the I. D. Act. Therefore, the action of the management in terminating the service of the workman Shri Satya Pal cannot be justified. It was improper and illegal and deserves to be quashed and the workman deserves to be reinstated in the service in the same capacity in which he was working at the time of his termination with only 40% of back wages as to him as per rules with all other consequential benefits. The award deserves to be implemented by the management within two months from the date of publication of this is with reference to the above said matter award in the official Gazette. "

( 2 ) THE said order of the Tribunal was challenged before the learned Single judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge dealt with the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that no appointment letter was issued in favour of the respondent and that he was appointed on a work order/contractual basis. The learned Single Judge noticed that a Circular dated 18th August, 1993 produced before the Tribunal was issued by the Director of Administration to the chief Engineer. The said Circular reads as follows:"you are, therefore, once again requested to send a list of all such daily rated Muster Roll Workers engaged on hand receipt or work order or any other basis defying the existing Government instructions, ensuring inter-alia termination of the services of all such workers who have not completed 240 days of service in two consecutive years. Your probable demand requiring appointment of such workers may also be intimated to this Directorate. Since the instructions with regard to absolute ban on engagement of workers on Muster Roll issued on 19. 11. 85, will also apply to any from of engaged of workers of daily rated including work order, you are, therefore, requested to follow the instructions quoted above and in future no recruitment even on work order be made. "the above Circular clearly shows that prior to 18. 8. 1993 the persons who were engaged on work orders were also being treated as daily rated workers. The respondent No. 1 workman here had worked continuously for three years from 20. 8. 1990 to 16. 9. 1993 on work order basis.

( 3 ) THE learned Single Judge followed a judgment in WP (C) No. 825/2003 in m/s The Director of Horticulture v. Shri Ram Sham and Anr. , where on similar facts, it had been held as follows:"the work orders issued by the petition for engaging the respondent and on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner, clearly show that the respondent had admittedly worked continuously from 1989 to 1993, though on three months basis, and in my opinion, the work orders issued by the petitioner were only camouflage to avoid regularization of the services of the respondent. Respondent was a driver employed to work on the water tanker of the petitioner. Though it is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent could appoint any other person to work as driver on the tanker, however, none of the conditions of the work order specify that the respondent could engage