Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. - (1.) CONCISELY , the relevant facts, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, are that Petitioner -workman Nand Lal (for brevity "workman") was employed as a Peon by the management of Dr. Ranjit Sagar Dam - Respondent No. 2 (for brevity "management"). As his services were stated to have illegally been terminated by the management on 26.2.1988, without issuing any show cause notice to him or following the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"), therefore, he raised an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Act, which was referred to the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court for adjudication by the appropriate Government.
(2.) HAVING completed all the codal formalities, the claim petition of the workman was accepted. He was reinstated with continuity of service and 50% of back wages by the Labour Court, by virtue of impugned award dated 5.2.1991 (Annexure P1). The workman did not feel satisfied, as regards the grant of 50% of back wages, is concerned and challenged the impugned award (Annexure P1), invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in this respect.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this context.;