Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) AS per the respondent workman, he was appointed on the post of Turner with effect from 4.8.1986. On 7.1.1987, the personnel manager of the petitioner employer got one paper typed in English signed from the respondent by projecting that the respondent is being confirmed in service as permanent employee. However, after one month, when the petitioner was not paid salary as confirmed employee, then on 10.2.1987, the respondent went to the petitioner upon which the personnel manager told the respondent that because of some objection of the union members, he is not being paid the salary of a permanent employee, however, the personnel manager of the petitioner assured that the petitioner has been made permanent. The respondent continued in service obviously on the salary of non -confirmed employee. On 4.1.1989, the same personnel manager of the petitioner called the respondent in his office when he was going to his house after completion of his duties and he was given a letter written in English which was dated 4.1.1989 and the Personnel manager of the petitioner obtained signatures on the copy of the said letter. While offering this letter, again the respondent was told by the personnel manager that from today, you have been confirmed. Since the respondent was not knowing English, therefore, he left the place and when he reached to his house and got the letter read from a known person, then he came to know that his services have been terminated. The respondent, therefore, raised industrial dispute and requested the competent authority to refer the matter to the Labour Court. However, the respondent's said request was rejected by the authority vide letter dated 6.9.1990 on the ground that the petitioner's service came to an end with the expiry of the term of the contract and, therefore, the matter cannot be referred as there is no industrial dispute. According to the respondent, he then again approached the competent authority and satisfied the competent authority that he was wrongly removed from service from 5.1.1989, then the matter was referred to the Labour Court vide order dated 25.6.1992. Reference was whether the management removed the respondent from service from 5.1.1989 illegally and if that is found to be illegal, then what relief the respondent is entitled to ?
(3.) THE respondent submitted his claim as well as affidavit and he was cross examined by the petitioner. The petitioner produced witness Mr. Himmat Singh Kaviya. The Labour Court after hearing both the parties held that in view of Ex. M/2, document produced by the petitioner before the Labour Court, the term of service was of two years which could have ended on 6.1.1989. However, "undisputedly" the employee's service was terminated from 5.1.1989. The Labour Court, therefore, held that the removal of employee from service was illegal and he be reinstated with continuity of service and 50% of back wages vide award dated 5.10.1996.;