JUDGMENT

M.M. DAS, J. : This writ petition has been filed the work¬man-petitioner against the award dated 14.11.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela. On an industrial dispute being raised upon failure of conciliation, the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1)(d) read with Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘I.D. Act’), the same was registered as I.D. Case No.23 of 2001. The reference was as follows:

“Whether the termination of services of the workman Sri Arjun Charan Sahoo, working as Peon at Fertilizer Branch, Rourke¬la of the Bank, by the Secretary, Sundargarh, Dist. Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Sundargarh w.e.f. 28.7.2000 is legal an/or justified? If not, to what relief the workman Sri Sahoo is enti¬tled to?”

2. After filing of the respective statements by the par¬ties, the Tribunal framed three issues, which read as follows:

1. Whether the 2nd party workman was in continuous employ¬ment for more than one year under the Ist party management?

2. Whether the termination of services of 2nd party workman by the Ist party management w.e.f. 28.7.2000 is legal and/or justified?

3. If not, to what relief the 2nd party is entitled to?

4. Whether the reference is maintainable?

3. In answering Issue No.1, the Tribunal held that the petitioner was engaged in the services of the Bank on daily wage basis and worked there continuously for more than 240 days in 12 calender months and his daily wage was enhanced from time to time. In answering Issue No.2, it was held that the petitioner-workman was retrenched from service with effect from 28.7.2000 and was not entitled for regularization in services of the Bank. His retrenchment or termination or dismissal from service is justified because there has been restriction imposed by the Government from time to time on any employment and the appoint¬ment of workman was ab-inito void in view of the fact that the authority of the Bank, who appointed the petitioner was not competent under the Staff Service Rules to appoint him.

4. In answering Issue No.3, the Tribunal held that it will be justified and equitable to award compensation at the rate of wages for 15 days for completion of every 240 days for which the petitioner has worked in the bank at the existing and prevalent scale of Rs.80/- per day. Being aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner-workman has approached this Court in the present writ petition.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis by the opposite-bank. Such workman was also being paid annual bonus and arrears of revised wages, which were being revised from time to time. The petitioner also claimed that large numbers of vacancies are available in the bank.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the Tribunal found that the reference was maintainable; the estab¬lishment is an industry and the petitioner is a workman, undis¬putedly, the provisions of the Act are applicable to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal having found that the petitioner was in continuous employment for more than one year under the management of the bank and his daily wage was enhanced from time to time, it is to be examined as to whether there was violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, by the management. Learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal is wrong in its conclusion that the decisions cited by the workman are only applicable to the workmen, who are under regular appointment, is unsustainable. He submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that engagement of the petitioner was ab-inito void. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his con¬tentions has relied upon he decisions in the cases of Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat -v- The Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. and another, AIR 1979 SC 1356, State Bank of India -v- N. Sundra Money, FLR 1976 (32) (SC) 197, Cuttack Municipal Council & another -v- Presiding Officer, Labour Court