RAJESH BALIA,J. - (1.) THIS appeal was filed in 1996 against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's petition challenging the award dated 12.1.1991 made by the Labour Court. Since publication of notice for preparation of paper book on 29.4.1998, after seeking a number of adjournments neither list of documents have been filed by the appellant nor initial charges for the paper book have been deposited. Having seen the record of the case and the issue involved, we deem it proper to dispense with the preparation of the paper book and to decide the appeal itself after hearing the parties.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. The respondent who was an employee with the Assistant Engineer, Rojari sub -division (8) Indira Ghandi Canal project, Chattargarh, Distt. Bikaner for almost a period of 2 years. It was pointed out that the workman was employed on. 10.1985 and in the, first instance his services were terminated on 17.1.1987 without : giving any notice or compensation though he was in continuous employment for a period of more than one year and had also worked for more than 240 days, during the 12 calendar months immediately proceeding the date of termination. Thereafter he was again employed on 1.10.1987 and then again his services were terminated on 24.12.1988 after completion of one year continuous service and of the second termination also, he was not given the benefit provided under the provision of Section 25(f)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter on raising the industrial dispute in this regard, the dispute was referred to Labour Court, Bikaner under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. About these two facts namely the first appointment and the two terminations, there is no dispute. It is stated by the appellant -petitioner the employer, that first appointment was made on 1.5.1985 and not on 1.10.1985. The workman in his claim has specifically averred that he was not paid any compensation for retrenchment and then even the salary for last month of service which stood terminated on 24.12.1988, was not paid before termination became effective but was paid only on 29.12.1998. In reply to claim petition these facts were not denied. However, it was only in the statement before the Tribunal on behalf of the employer it was stated that Rs. 262.50 were offered as compensation. However in the absence of any other material supporting this the statement was not found credible. On these basis the learned Judge, Labour Court found that on both occasions, termination was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the termination was void ab -initio. On this conclusion the workman was reinstated with full back wages.
(3.) THEREAFTER appellant challenged the aforesaid award by way of Writ Petition No. 574/1995.;