JUDGMENT :

S.N. PRASAD, J.

The writ petition who is the workman has assailed the award dated 17.9.2000 passed in Industrial Dispute Case No.120 (97 (C) whereby and where under the reference has been answered in negative of the workman.

2. Case of the workman that he has joined service under the management on 15.4.1992 and continued 9.3.94, he has completed more than 240 days of service during the year 1992-93, and 283 days for the year 1993-94, he was regularly contributing to provident fund and receiving bonus but the management has terminated his service from 10.3.1994 without notice and without giving any benefits as provided under Section 25-F, so termination order is illegal in violation of principle of natural justice and prayer for reinstatement with full back wages has been made.

3. While on the other hand, case of the opposite party-Management is that North Orissa Workers Union has got no locus standi to represent the workman as and he was never a member of that union at the time of his termination and as such the reference is not maintainable as the workman did not prefer appeal before the Arbitrator as provided under the standing order. The petitioner was engaged in the granite department of the company from, 1992 to March, 1994 and nature of job was temporary, contractual and intermittent for the purpose of same preparation from granite blocks at cutting & polishing unit located at Joda. He was always being given appointments for a fixed period with terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment letter. Since he was given appointment for fixed period, his work ceased at the end of the period, as such this case falls under Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such Section 25 F is not applicable.

4. The workman being aggrieved with the action of the management has raised dispute which ultimately culminated into the reference and the same has been answered by the Industrial Tribunal by way of the award which is impugned in this writ petition.

5. The industrial Tribunal after examining the materials placed before it has formulated the following issues:

(i) Whether the General Secretary, North Orissa workers' Union has locus standi to represent the second party-workman?

(ii) Whether the reference is maintainable?

(iii) Whether the termination of the workman by the management without any written order w.e.f. 10.3.94 is justified and proper?

(iv) If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ?

6. The Industrial Tribunal after taking into consideration the nature of appointment which is for a period of tenure which is extended time to time has come to conclusion that the workman cannot be said to be retrenched workman in view of the definition of retrenchment as contemplated under Section 2 () (bb) and the provision of Section 25-F has not been followed.

7. We have appreciated the contentions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record and before going through the finding given by the Industrial Tribunal it is relevant to have discussion of the relevant provision of Section 25 F, 25-B and 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which has got bearing with the issue involved in this case.

Section 25F which speaks as follows:

"25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until –

(a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing including the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such, wages for the period of the notice;

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government [or such