- (1.) THESE special appeals are directed against the Judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 16. 10. 1990 passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3740 of 1990 whereby the learned single Judge while dismissing the Writ Petition by General Manager, N. Rly, has upheld the Award of the learned Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, dated 27. 10. 1989 with the modification that the respondent Prahlad Ku-mar (workman) will be entitled'to reinstatement with 50% back wages only.
(2.) AGGRIEVED against this Judgment of the learned single Judge, these two special appeals have been filed: one by the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi and Others; and the other by the Railway Casual Labour Union. As they are directed against the same impugned Judgment of the learned single Judge, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common Judgment.
(3.) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of these appeals briefly stated are: that the casual labour Prahlad Kumar was appointed initially as a Khalasi on 24. 8,1979 by the Works Inspector, Northern Railway, Hanumangarh Junction. Later on, he was appointed by the Railway Traffic Inspector, Ahallabad on 9. 5. 1981. It is alleged that he was appointed as T. L. A. and his services were terminated by the Railway Traffic Inspector, Ahallabad in the afternoon of 5. 8. 81 and, therefore, an industrial dispute was raised by the Railway Casual Labour Union on behalf of the Workman Prahlad Kumar and that dispute came to be referred to the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, along with the dispute of one Prithviraj Singh. The industrial dispute of Prithiviraj Singh was dismissed by the learned Central Industrial Tribunal but the termination of the services of workman Prahlad Kumar was held against the provisions of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') and Rule 77 of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and the workman Prahlad Kumar was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages. Before the learned Central Industrial Tribunal, both the parties filed affidavits and an opportunity of cross-examination was afforded and, thereafter, the learned Central Industrial Tribunal felt that in this case, there is a clear-cut violation of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act and Rule 77 of the Rules and, therefore, the aforesaid order was passed.;