C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The impugned Award, dated 12th February, 2004, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) holds the termination, of the services of the respondent, by the petitioner, to be illegal and unjustified and, consequently, directs her reinstatement with all consequential benefits, including full back wages. The petitioner, aggrieved thereby, is before this Court in the present writ petition.

2. The facts of the case, as projected before this Court in the present writ petition, by the petitioner, maybe set out thus:

On 23rd January, 1984, the respondent was engaged, as a casual labourer, at wages of Rs. 12/– per day. No appointment order was issued to her, purportedly “since her services were engaged only on purely casual basis” (as stated in the writ petition). As the respondent became irregular in attending office, she was cautioned in this regard. On 29th September, 1989, the respondent submitted an application, to the petitioner, for being granted leave for the period 3rd October, 1989 to 7th October, 1999, as she had some urgent work, which required her to go to Delhi. The petitioner again cautioned the respondent, on 7th October, 1989, to make up her earlier irregular attendance; however, instead of maintaining punctuality, the respondent again applied for leave, on 23rd October 1989, for the period 22nd October, 1989 to 4th November, 1989. Though the respondent had remained absent from 8th October, 1989 to 21st October, 1989, she offered no explanation there for. Neither was her leave application, dated 23rd October, 1989, accompanied by any medical certificate. In these circumstances, on 4th November, 1989, the respondent was informed that her services were no longer required. The respondent, thereupon, initiated an industrial dispute, which was referred, by the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, on 23rd/31st January, 1991, to the Tribunal, for adjudication, with the following term of reference:

“Whether the action of the Director (North) Bareilly in engaging Smt. Shashi Kanta Rishi as casual labour and utilising as Typist and not absorbing her in regular service and terminating her service October 89 is justified? If not, what relief she is entitled to and from what date?”

Before the Tribunal, the respondent contended, in her Statement of Claim, that she had been working on the post of typist, in the office of the petitioner, w.e.f. 23rd January, 1984. She contended that her absence from duty, from 10th October, 1989 to 4th November, 1989, was attributable to her illness, regarding which she sent medical certificates, from time to time, to the petitioner. The respondent submitted that she had been engaged, by the petitioner, as a Class III employee, and that, throughout her tenure with the petitioner, she was made to work as a typist. She also drew attention, in her Statement of Claim, to the fact that, in each year from 1984 to 1989, she had completed more than 240 days of work. Per contra, the petitioner, in its written statement filed before the Tribunal, submitted that the respondent had never been appointed as a typist, and that there was, in fact, no vacant post of typist in its establishment. It was emphasised that the respondent was only a casual worker, and that, therefore, there was no question of granting any leave to her. Casual workers, it was submitted, were paid according to the days during which they had worked, but the respondent had become a habitual absentee, leaving the petitioner no option but to terminate her services. A preliminary objection, to the effect that the petitioner was not an “industry”, within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the ID Act”) was also advanced, by the petitioner, before the Tribunal; however, the said objection was rejected, by the Tribunal vide a preliminary Award dated 1st December, 1997, and the issue has not been pressed b