Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals have been heard on two different dates but as the impugned order has been passed by same learned Single Judge and the controversy involved in these two appeals is one and the same, and incidentally the counsel for the two appellants is also the same, these appeals are being decided by this common judgment. FACTS OF APPEAL NO. 420/08:
(2.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 3rd November 2006, by which the award of the Labour Court dated 05.12.2000 was modified. Appellant Ratanlal submitted before Labour Court that he was appointed by respondent No. 1 on 13th April 1993 on their Lime Project as an unskilled labour, he suddenly fell ill on 7.06.1994 and therefore had to go to Jaisalmer for his treatment. He returned back on 08.06.1994 but by verbal order respondent refused to allow him to join his duties and removed from service and such removal was made in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. After appellant's removal, Project Manager of respondent appointed one Sonu his relative in his place. It was prayed that action of the respondent be declared illegal and he be directed to reinstate him in service with full back wages. Respondent in its reply submitted that appellant was employed an unskilled casual labour on work basis as and when necessity arose and that the appellant left the job on his own accord and did not turn up to work. It was denied that respondent had appointed anyone else after removal of the appellant and submitted that appellant himself absented from duty and did not come thereafter, hence claim of the appellant be rejected. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, Labour Court vide its Award dated 05.12.2000 held that appellant had completed 240 days and therefore his removal was in breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and thus ordered for his reinstatement in service forthwith with 50% back wages.
(3.) AGAINST this award, the respondent employer filed writ and the learned Single Judge by impugned order modified the award of Labour Court and instead of reinstatement and 50% back wages directed the respondent employer to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation to the appellant within three months. FACTS OF APPEAL NO. 453/08:;