Ashok Parihar, J. - (1.) Since both the appeals are arising out of common orders passed by the courts below, on the request of counsel for the parties, both the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.
(2.) Services of the plaintiff respondent (the concerned workman) were terminated vide order dated 23.1.1983. Though it has alleged by the concerned workman that a departmental appeal has been filed by him and the same was dismissed by the appellate authority on 15.1.1986, a suit for declaration was filed by the concerned workman before the trial court only on 12.12.1988. Considering the evidence and material on record, the suit was decreed by the trial court vide order dated 6.7.1991. While setting aside the order of termination been illegal, null & void and in violation of the principles of natural justice, the concerned workman was held entitled for reinstatement. However, wages were allowed only from the date of filing of suit i.e. 12.12.1998.
(3.) Aggrieved by the above judgement and-decree dated 6.7.1991 passed by the trial court, separate appeals were filed by the appellant corporation as well as the concerned workman. The first appellate court dismissed both the appeals by the common order dated 1.7.1996. hence the present appeal filed by the appellant corporation challenging the orders passed by the courts below.;