1. The appellant, Rattan Singh, was employed as workman/head workman in Telephone Department, Sub-Division, Kurukshetra on daily- wage basis. His case is that he had worked during the period from 23- 10-1972 till 10-8-1976 and thereafter his services were discontinued. He filed a civil suit in the Court of Sub-Judge, Third Class, Ambala city for a declaration that the order terminating the services of the appellant was null and void. The said suit was dismissed by the trial court by judgment dated 25-2-1982. The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala, by judgment dated 22-1 - 1985, and the case was remanded to the trial court to record evidence on the additional issue framed by the appellate court and decide the matter in accordance with law. The said additional issue related to the question whether the department was duty-g bound to give one months notice in writing to the appellant before terminating his services as required by law under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as " the and, if so, to what effect. The High Court, in second appeal, vide judgment dated 5-8-1985, set aside the said order of the Additional District Judge on the view that if the additional issue was framed the decree of the trial court could not be set aside on this ground alone and that the only course open to the appellate court was to send for the report on the said issue from the trial court as contemplated under Order 41 Rule 25 CPC. The High Court, a therefore, directed that the lower appellate court would send for a report on the issue framed and then decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. By virtue of the said order passed by the High Court, the appeal of the appellant stood revived before the Additional District Judge. While the said appeal was pending, the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") was constituted under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act and the said appeal was transferred to the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal. The matter was disposed of by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 19-9-1986. The Tribunal has rejected the contention urged by the appellant that since the appellant had worked continuously for four years, his services could not be terminated and he should have been paid retrenchment compensation under the. The Tribunal has observed that the appellant has admitted that no appointment letter was issued to him and he has also admitted that he was a daily-rated casual worker and, in view of the said submissions made by the appellant, it could be safely concluded that the appellant was a simple daily-rated worker

2. Shri S. M. Ashri, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that merely because the appellant was a daily-rated worker does not mean that he is not entitled to the protection of Section 25-F of the. Shri Ashri has invited our attention to the judgment of the first appellate court dated 22-1 - 1985 wherein it is recorded that admittedly the appellant was a workman and he has served the Telephone Department on the dates mentioned in the said judgment which shows that the appellant has continuously worked for more than 240 days in a year. The submission of Shri Ashri is that the termination of the services of the appellant was in violation of Section 25-F of the

3. We find merit in the said submission of Shri Ashri. From the dates mentioned in the judgment of the first appellate court dated 22-1- 1985, it appears that the appellant had continuously worked for more than 240 days in a year. Since he was a workman, he was entitled to the protection of Section 25-F of theand the said protection could not be denied to him on the ground that he was a daily-rated worker. It is not the case of the respondents that the provisions of Section 25-F of thewere complied with while terminating the services of the appellant. In these circumstances, the termination of services of the appellant cannot be upheld and has to be set aside. The services of the appellant were terminated in the year 1976. Nearly 20 years have elapsed since then. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to direct reinstatement of the appellant. But having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that a consolidated sum of Rs 25, 000 be paid to the appellant in lieu of compensation for back wages as well as reinstatement. This amount is being paid in full and final settlement of all the claims of the appellant. The said amount shall be paid within two months. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.