- (1.) The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned Award of the Labour Court dated 30. 8. 1995 (Annexure 3), by which it has been held that the respondent-workman and completed 240 days in a calendar year counting backward from the date of termination and the termination order has further been found to have been passed without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1947").
(2.) The Labour Court has passed the order of reinstatement of the respondent -workman with continuity of service and with all the back wages. While making that award, the Labour Court has observed that the employer (present petitioner), after filing the counter-claim and entering appearance, did not participate in the proceedings nor it led any evidence to support its case that the respondent-workman was removed after following the enquiry, nor it had made any application that the issue may be determined under the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act, nor it has controverted the oral as well as the documentary evidence adduced by the respondent-workman.
(3.) There can be no justification for interference with the Award in view of the facts stated above. If the representative of the employer has not prosecuted the case properly, no fault can be found with the award and the petitioner-employer was always at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings against such an erring employee. It has not been brought to the notice of the Court as to what action has been taken by the petitioner against him and what is the difficulty for it to recover the entire loss suffered by it from reinstatement of the respondent-workman and paying him the back wages.;