( 1 ) ). Rule. Mr. S. P. Hasulkar, learned Advocate appears for respondent and waives service of Rule. Heard learned Counsel for the parties on merits.

( 2 ) ). On reference being made, of the following question: the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara made Award on the following terms on 30-4-1994:

( 3 ) ). Aggrieved with the aforesaid Award, the Municipal Corporation, Vadodara has come up before this Court through this Special Civil Application.

( 4 ) ). To understand contentions and controversy raised before me, it would be necessary to notice brief facts as narrated in the Award. Respondent-Gajendra R. Dhumal (hereinafter called as the workman) was appointed in 1981 by the petitioner-Corporation as Asstt. Draftsman on which post he continued until when his services were wrongly terminated without following the conditions of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thereafter he was appointed on Tracers post, lower to the post of Asstt. Draftsman from October 1985. By the order dated 9-10-1985, the workman was transferred to another department on the ground that his work in the present department was not satisfactory. However, from the record of the Municipal Corporation, it was clear that the work of Shri Dhumal was satisfactory throughout. On the said post, workman again came to be appointed on 15-2-1986 until 31-3-1986. He continued on the post even after 31-3-1986 without any order. On 17-5-1986, the order was issued for extending services w. e. f. 1-4-1986 for a period of 3 months. Likewise thereafter appointment was continued, without termination on expiry of time, though extension orders was issued retrospectively from time to time. This was done notwithstanding the fact that from the letter dated 2-8-1986 of Town Planner it came on record that in fact the work was existing and there were recommendations for appointing the petitioner at least for a period of one year. The petitioner has raised dispute about placing him on lower post as while working on the post of Asstt. Draftsman, he was continued and the fact that he had already completed one year continuous service on the post of Asstt. Draftsman and from which post, his services could not be terminated without fulfilling conditions precedent for valid retrenchment from the post of Draftsman. While this was going on, after some time, workman was given appointment as Helper in the month of August 1988 for a fixed period from 6-8-1988 to 30-9-1988 as a Daily-wager Helper and while the petitioner made a demand for doing justice to him in respect of his status in the matter of appointment by not reverting him from the post of Asstt. Draftsman to the post of Helper, by the impugned order dated 5-11-1988, services of the respondent workman were brought to an end.

( 5 ) ). It is in this background that the workmans first appointment as Asstt. Draftsman first appointment as Asstt. Draftsman and his subsequent reversion to the lower post of Tracer and his demand for post of Asstt. Draftsman on the ground that his termination from the post of Asstt. Draftsman being violative of retrenchment provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and subsequent termination of the petitioners service even from the post of Helper led to the aforesaid question being referred to the Tribunal for adjudication.

( 6 ) ). The Tribunal found as a fact that the workman has worked for two years and seven months between 1981 to 1984 on the post of Asstt. Draftsman, that there was permanent post of Asstt. Draftsman on which workman was functioning but in order to accommodate somebody else, the workman was transferred from parent department to another department. Thereafter also from 1986 to 1988, workman worked fror more than 2 years with the Corporation. It also came to the finding that though the work was existing which was of permanent nature, the petitioner was offered fixed-term appointment and with artificial break meaning thereby that it was purely a camaflouge (sic.) to hid