Aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal, (Central), Hyderabad in I.D.No.58 of 1990 dated 18-11-1993, whereby the 1st respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with full back wages and protection of seniority among employees of Mahaboobnagar District, the present writ petition is filed.

2. Facts, to the extent necessary, are that the 1st respondent was employed on daily wages as a casual mazdoor from 10-1-1984 to 30-11-1984. After a break of seven months, his services was again engaged on 1-7-1985 and he worked continuously till 31-3-1986. During this period, between 1-7-1985 and 31-3-1986, he actually worked for 183 days and was not given weekly offs. Aggrieved by the action of the petitioner herein, in retrenching the 1st respondent from service, a dispute was raised and consequent thereto the Central Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The order of reference reads as under:

"Whether the action of the management of Divisional Engineer, Telecom, Mahaboobnagar in retrenching the workman Sri Venkataiah, Ex-casual Mazdoor w.e.f. 1-4-1986 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

3. This reference was registered as I.D.No.68 of 1990. A claim statement was filed by the 1st respondent - workman. The petitioner herein filed their counter affidavit wherein they stated that the 1st respondent was engaged as a casual labour for a specific work and for a specified purpose w.e.f. 30-1-1984, that the 1st respondent was clearly informed that he would be provided with work as and when it was available and that his services were liable to be disengaged when there was no work, that he worked as a casual mazdoor for 231 days during the year 1984, 109 days during the year 1985 and 74 days during the year 1986 to render class IV duties purely on casual basis as there was heavy absenteeism and shortage of Group D staff in the office, that the engagement of the 1st respondent was never continuous and was only casual depending on the availability of work and that the engagement was with the specific understanding that, as and when Group D staff were available, his services would not be engaged. The 1st respondent was paid Rs.6/- per day for the work done by him and since there was no work with effect from 1-4-1986 his services were disengaged for want of work. The petitioner herein contended before the Tribunal that the 1st respondent had made his claim for reinstatement nearly 4 years after his disengagement, that the question of termination of a casual labourer did not arise as the work itself was casual in nature, that there were no merits in his claim and that he was not entitled for employment nor for the back wages claimed by him.

4. Before the Industrial Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as W.W.1 and marked Exs. W.1 to 17 as exhibits. On behalf of the petitioner herein Sri P. Janardhan Rao was examined as M.W.1. However no documents were marked as exhibits. M.W.1 deposed that the services of the 1st respondent were engaged as casual labour as there was heavy absenteeism, that before his engagement the 1st respondent was intimated that he was engaged only on temporary basis and in leave vacancies, that the 1st respondent was engaged from 30-1-1984 to November 1984 for 231 days, from July, 1985 to March 1986 for 183 days and because there was no vacancy of Group D employees, after March, 1986, the 1st respondent was not engaged in service thereafter.

5. The Tribunal held that retrenchment of the 1st respondent from service, with effect from 1-12-1984, was without notice, without payment of notice period wages and without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and was in violation of the orders of the Central Government dated 1-10-1984, according to which casual mazdoors who had served the department for at least 240 days in a year and whose services were proposed to be terminated, were required to be give