Prakash Tatia, R.K. Merathia, JJ. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The appellant is aggrieved against the order dated 26th February, 2009, by which, the award of the Labour Court dated 31st December, 2002 was set aside by allowing the Writ Petition No. W.P. (L) No. 2448 of 2003.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that employee (now deceased) was duly appointed and confirmed in his service, and his service was terminated without due process of law and, therefore, he was entitled to reinstatement. It has further been submitted that the Labour Court has considered the matter in detail including the statement of Doctor who has clearly stated that the workman was under disability because of the reason he met with an accident and, therefore, he could not attend the duty. Here the provision of Section 25-F has not complied with is an admitted fact. Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the statement of doctor in support of the contention that it was not the case of willful absence from the duty.;