SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have challenged in this petition the impugned award dated 12. 10. 2000 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur in Reference No. 8/97 whereby the Labour Court declared the termination of the respondent workman illegal and ordered the present petitioners to take him back in service and to grant all benefits of service but instead of awarding full back wages to the workman, he ordered to pay 50% of back wages that too from the date of reference i. e. 31. 1. 97.
(2.) LEARNED counsel Mr. Goyal for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the reference proceedings before the Labour Court, the respondent workman had entered into a compromise dated 13. 4. 99 which is at Annex. 2 and as per the terms of the compromise, the workman was not entitled for back wages and he was required to withdraw the case which he had filed before the Labour Court. Inspite of this, the Labour Court while declaring the termination had awarded him 50% back wages from the date of reference. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned award regarding back wages be quashed and set aside. Except this submission, no other contention was raised and the award of the Labour Court was not challenged on any other ground, therefore, I am required to deal with this contention only regarding grant of 50% of back wages from the date of reference. Photostat copy of the so-called compromise dated 13. 4. 99 (Annex. 2) is produced for the first time before this Court by the petitioners. This was never brought to the notice of the learned Labour Judge who passed the award subsequently on 12. 10. 2000. The compromise is typed one where few facts are handwritten on which the signatures of the respondent workman were obtained. Such a document cannot be taken into consideration by this Court for the first time in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. In the instant case, the workman was appointed as Beldar way back on 1. 8. 84. He worked continuously upto 15. 1. 93 for a period of more than 8 years and 6 months. His services were terminated on 15. 1. 93 by an oral order on the ground that now muster roll is not maintained and the work will be done by the contractor on contract basis. Under the circumstances, when the employer without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act terminated the services of the workman, then in my considered opinion, such an order of termination has to be declared illegal and quashed. While quashing the same, in ordinary circumstances, the order of back wages should have followed but considering the evidence of the workman wherein he stated that he was doing some agriculture work, therefore, the Labour Court thought it fit to award 50% back wages and that too from the date of reference i. e. on 31. 1. 97 and not from the date of termination i. e. 15. 1. 93. Such type of award cannot be interfered by this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. In view of the above discussion, this petition is dismissed. Stay petition is also dismissed. . ;