The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the conditions prescribed in Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, equivalent to Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the requirement for substantial compliance with the said provision for the termination of a workman.

( 1 ) THE petitioners-employers-U. P. State electricity Board, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have challenged the award of the industrial Tribunal (1 ). U. P. , at Allahabad, hereinafter referred to as the tribunal, dated 9/08/1985, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the contesting respondent-workman, namely, Mohd. Jameel was employed with the employers, as would be clear from the narration of fact and the written statement filed by the parties and referred to by the Tribunal in the award, which reveals that the workman concerned Mohd. Jameel was employed as Pump Operator-cum- electrician with the employers w. e. f. 1/06/1977. The services of the workman concerned were wrongfully terminated by the employers on 1/02/1979. The workman through the respective union raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, allahabad and was registered by the Tribunal as Adjudication Case No. 168 of 1980. The tribunal vide its award dated 17/08/1981, published on 3/10/1981 held that the) termination of the workman concerned Mohd. Jameel from service by the employers was illegal. The Tribunal directed for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages for the workman. The workman concerned 5 thereafter moved an application that under section 6-E of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the act, the second issue referred to has not been decided. For disposal of the case, it would be convenient) to peruse the reference that has been made by the State Government under Section 4-K of the act, which runs as under: (Vernacular matter omitted)

( 3 ) AS already stated, when the services of the workman concerned were terminated w. e. f. 1/02/1979, a dispute was raised which has been answered in favour of the workman for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The Tribunal directed for reinstatement vide its award dated 17/08/1981. Pursuant to the aforesaid award, the employers reinstated the workman and started paying Rs. 10/- per day, as according to the employers the workman was employed on daily wage basis. In this circumstance, the second issue, which was referred to by the State government for adjudication, the Tribunal has answered both the issues in favour of the workman by the award impugned in the present petition holding that the termination of the services of the concerned workman w. e. f. 1/02/1979 were illegal, inasmuch as the provisions of Section 6-N of the Act, which is pari materia of Section 25-F of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947, have not been complied with. The Tribunal has also directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and back wages. With regard to the second issue, the Tribunal have directed that the workman is in continuous service since 1977 and has put in more than eight years till 19/06/1984. The Tribunal has recorded finding that indeed it is too long a period to keep a workman employed on casual /daily wage basis, which is the connotation of muster roll employees and therefore the Tribunal have directed the employers to consider seriously the possibility of absorbing the workman concerned on regular basis. Learned counsel for the petitioners-employers have raised the argument that a perusal of the order of termination dated 19/06/1984, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, clearly demonstrates that the order purports to comply with all requirements of Section 6-N/section 25-F of the Act, as according to the petitioners counsel, it is not necessary that the amount as contemplated under Section s 6-N/25- F of the act must be paid at the time of the retrenchment, but if the order contemplates the offer to collect the amount contemplated under section 25-F of the Act, it is the substantial compliance of the said provision and the tribunal has erred in holdi