K. Surendra Mohan, J.

This writ petition has come up before us upon a reference made by the learned Single Judge, who heard the matter initially. As per order dated 28.6.2016 the case has been referred to the Division Bench for the reason that another learned single judge of this court, by judgment dated 5.10.2009 in WP(C) No. 27809 of 2003, has set aside an identical award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, at the instance of the very same petitioner before us. The matter arises under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

2. The petitioner, the management, challenges Ext P5 award of the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha in I.D.No.44 of 2000. As per the award the Industrial Tribunal has held that denial of employment to the first respondent workman was unjustified. Consequently, it has been declared that the termination of the 1st respondent-workman was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. Therefore, it is also declared that, the workman shall be deemed to be in service till he is validly terminated. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award.

3. The short facts necessary for our purpose are the following:

The first respondent was working as a part-time Tele-printer Operator of the petitioner from March, 1983 onwards, on a consolidated monthly salary. The monthly salary was initially Rs. 500/- per month, but had been enhanced to Rs. 680/- per month. While so, on 30.11.1996 a contract was entered into between the employee and the management specifying that the period of his employment would be only up to 31.3.1998. An enhanced salary of Rs. 1,000/- per month is stipulated by the agreement which is evidenced by Ext P3 in this writ petition. Thereafter, the employee was given an extension of service on an enhanced salary of Rs. 1,500/-. Such extension was granted on 21.4.1998, with effect from 1.4.1998. The period of extension stipulated was one year. He was terminated from service on 1.4.1999. Thereupon, an industrial dispute was raised and the same was referred for adjudication by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal.

4. In his Claim Statement before the Industrial Tribunal the first respondent contended that he was a permanent employee under the management for 16 years, commencing from 21.4.1983. Though he was designated as a part time Teleprinter Operator, his work was spread over 7 to 9 hours a day. Apart from the duties of a Teleprinter Operator, he had to attend to various other duties also such as printing of photographs, news, assisting the correspondent in all assignments, coverage of news in emergency etc. He was being paid only a salary of Rs. 500/- initially, which was subsequently raised to Rs. 689.50 per month. It was at that time that he was offered an appointment as a Teleprinter Operator without any stipulation regarding the hours of duty. He was offered a consolidated pay of Rs. 1,000/- per month. Since the enhancement in salary was an urgent need of the employee, he had agreed to the terms of the contract and had signed the same on 30.11.1996. It is also the case of the workman that when he had come to the office on 1.4.1999 to work, he was denied employment, relying on the terms of the agreement. It was contended that the action of the management in denying him employment without any reason was arbitrary and unsustainable.

5. The claim of the workman was contested by the employer contending that the workman had been initially engaged as a part time Teleprinter Operator on a consolidated monthly pay. While working as such, the parties had executed Ext P3 agreement by which, the nature of employment was changed. The tenure of employment was also limited to 31.3.1998. The workman had agreed to the terms of the contract accepting the enhancement in salary offered to him. Since the workman had agreed to the terms of Ext P3, his termination on the expiry thereof does not amount to retrenchment. Therefore, it was contended that the workman was not entitled to any