PWD THR DY DIR HORTICULTURE Vs. SATYA PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal challenges the order dated 19.10.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge upholding the Award dated 30th April 2004 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (`Tribunal') holding that the termination of the services of the respondent was illegal as it was done without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('I.D. Act'). The Tribunal had recorded the following findings:

(2.) The said order of the Tribunal was challenged before the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge dealt with the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that no appointment letter was issued in favour of the respondent and that he was appointed on a work order/contractual basis. The learned Single Judge noticed that a Circular dated 18th August, 1993 produced before the Tribunal was issued by the Director of Administration to the Chief Engineer. The said Circular reads as follows:

(3.) The learned Single Judge followed a judgment in WP(C) No.825/2003 in M/s The Director of Horticulture v. Shri Ram Sham and Anr., where on similar facts, it had been held as follows: