9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant herein. 3. The respondent was appointed initially on muster roll as a Pump Driver, on temporary basis, with the appellant. According to the appellant the respondent had worked upto 12.12.1984 from his initial date of employment and also worked in the month of May and June, 1985 for 21 days and 26 days respectively, under the appellant. The respondent left the service from 1.11.1985 without informing the appellant. As such the respondent has rendered a total number of 197 days of service under the appellant as per the muster roll produced before the Labour Court. 4. The respondent filed an application dated 29.6.1986 before the Conciliation Officer alleging that he was terminated from servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Claim alleging that he had worked under the appellant from 14.7.1984 to 1.11.1985, however, his service was terminated from 1.11.1985 without giving one month's notice or salary in lieu of notice, compensation in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( the Act for short). The respondent also alleged violation of Sections 25G and 25H of the Act thereby terminating his services on the basis of having rendered service for more than 240 days in a year. 6. The appellant filed a reply to the Statement of Claim of the respondent denying the said allegations and pointing out the rejection of the application by the Conciliation Officer, vide order dated 19.5.1988, on the basis of false assertion of the respondent o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correct on the basis of the evidence adduced before the said Court. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant filed a writ petition, being D.B. Special Civil Appeal No. 85/2004, before the Division Bench of the High Court, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 321 days. 10. The Division Bench of the High Court vide impugned judgment dated 28.1.2004 dismissed the said Special Civil Appeal No. 85/2004 on the ground of delay, being barred by 321 days. The High Court also observed that there was no merit in the said Special Civil Appeal and held that the Labour Court was right in directing reinstatement of the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t while granting leave, passed a further order by way of modification of its order dated 11.10.2004, and directed that the appellant may reinstate the respondent but the recovery of back-wages pursuant to the impugned Award shall remain stayed during the hearing of the appeal. Since the order of the Division Bench is not a speaking one, we set aside the same and remit the matter to the Division Bench of the High Court for fresh disposal and passing a speaking order after hearing the respective parties. We, therefore, restore the D.B. Special Civil Appeal No. 85, 2004 to the file of the High Court and request the Division Bench to dispose of the same afresh on merit and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
