Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. This writ petition seeks quashing of the award dated 31st March, 2004 of the Labour Court, finding that the respondent/workman had upon being engaged as a casual worker as a Switch Board Attendant with the petitioner (Garrison Engineer, Palam (North), Air Force), had completed 240 days in service before his termination and holding the termination to be bad under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act and directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with continuity in service and of other consequential benefits. However, the respondent/workman was denied the relief of back wages. This Court vide order dated 23rd February, 2005 stayed the operation of the award and the said order has continued till now. Vide order dated 30th January, 2008, the application of the respondent/workman under Section 17 B was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay to the respondent the last drawn wages or the minimum wages whichever is higher from the date of the award and during the pendency of this petition subject to the respondent/workman filing an undertaking that in the event of the petition being allowed, he shall refund or repay the difference of last drawn wages and minimum wages.

2. The contentions of the counsel for the petitioner are:-

(i) That recruitment to the post of Switch Board Attendant is to be as per the statutory rules and the respondent/workman was not selected in terms of the said rules but was engaged merely as a casual worker.

(ii) That he had not completed 240 days of service and had merely worked for 75 days. Reliance in this regard is placed on the statement of case dated 27th August, 1993 and the letter dated 24th December, 1991 of the officials of the petitioner and the affidavits filed before the Labour Court of the officials of the petitioner and the written submissions filed before the Labour Court. It is further contended that the onus was on the respondent/workman to establish that he had completed 240 days of service and on enquiry as to how, it is stated that the said onus ought to have been discharged by proof of gate pass and salary receipts. On further enquiry as to whether the petitioner in the cross examination of the respondent/workman before the Labour Court asked the respondent/workman to produce the said documents, the answer is in the negative. It is contended that the Labour Court erred in not believing the audit report for wages filed by the petitioner stating that the respondent/ workman has worked for 75 days only and in disbelieving the same.

(iii) That the rule of 240 days does not apply when the appointment to a particular post, as per the statutory rules, are to be done in a particular manner. It is argued that casual employment for no length of time can entitle such casual workers to appointment which is not as per statutory rules. Reliance is placed on Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi v. State of Bihar, (1997) 4 SCC 391 to contend that disengagement of temporary employees is not retrenchment. Reference is made to Jaipur Development Authority v. Ram Sahai, JT (2006) 9 SC 520 to contend that even where a violation of Section 25G & Section 25H of the Act is held to have taken place, the same by itself would not mean that the award of reinstatement should be made. In that case, the relief of reinstatement was reversed for the reason of the workman having not been employed in accordance with the rules of recruitment, the job being of a perennial nature and there being nothing to show that when the services of the workman were terminated persons junior to him in the same category, had been retained and for the reason of long delay since the dispensation of the services. It is further contended that in the present case, casual workers similarly situated as the petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and thereafter the Supreme Court and were not allowed to be absorbed and the petitioner who has taken the route of the Labour Court ought not to be g