JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment dated 12.5.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby CWP No. 111 of 2009, titled Dr. Y.S. Parmar University and Another vs. Shri Pratap Singh and Another, having been filed by the appellants/petitioners, laying therein challenge to award dated 23.10.2008, passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh (herein after referred to as the “Industrial Tribunal”) came to be dismissed, appellants/petitioners have approached this Court in the instant LPA, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid impugned judgment.

2. Key facts, necessary for adjudication of the case at hand, are that being aggrieved on account of termination of his services without there being compliance of various provisions contained under the Industrial Disputes Act (herein after referred to as “the Act”), respondent No. 1 raised industrial dispute before the appropriate authority. Since conciliation failed, appropriate government under Section 10 (2) of the Act, made following reference:

“Whether the termination of services of Sh. Pratap Singh, S/o Shri Chambal Ram workman by the (1) Registrar, Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Distt. Solan, H.P. (2) Executive Engineer (Const.), Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Distt. Solan, H.P. w.e.f. 21.08.98 without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is proper and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits and amount of compensation the above aggrieved workman is entitled to?”

3. Respondent No. 1 claimed before the Industrial Tribunal that he was initially engaged as daily paid labourer on 3.6.1995 against the work namely “construction of Training Hostel at Manali” which was a project work under NARP funded by the Government of India. Respondent No. 1 claimed that he worked with the appellants/petitioners/department on different intervals, but suddenly, after 20.8.1998, his services were dispensed with for want of work and funds. He submitted before the Industrial Tribunal that he worked continuously for five years with the department with 240 days in each calendar year.

4. While refuting the aforesaid claim put forth by the respondent, appellants/petitioners stated in their reply that respondent No. 1 was engaged for casual, specific and seasonal work under DARP, which was an adhoc project of the Government of India undertaken at the time of construction of training hostel at Manali. Appellants/petitioners also submitted in their reply that respondent No. 1 never completed 240 days continuously in any calendar year and at the time of his initial engagement, he had given undertaking in writing to the effect that he would not claim any seniority and regularization on account of seasonal engagement with appellants/petitioners. In nutshell, appellants/petitioners claimed that appointment/engagement of respondent No. 1 was co-terminus with the work of the hostel.

5. Respondent No. 1 controverted the aforesaid pleas set up by the appellants/petitioners by way of rejoinder.

6. After having perused aforesaid pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties as well as evidence, be it oculour or documentary, led on record, learned Industrial Tribunal vide award dated 23.10.2008, held respondent No. 1 entitled to reinstatement with 25% of back-wages alongwith the benefit of continuity of service.

7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, appellants/petitioners filed writ petition as detailed herein above in this Court, however, same also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 12.5.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge. In the aforesaid background, appellants/petitioners have approached this Court in the instant appeal, praying therein to set-aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.

8. We have heard t