M D S UNIVERSITY Vs. KAILASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has challenged the award dated 9-1-2006 passed by the Labour court, Jaipur by which while holding termination of services of respondent No. 1, the concerned workman, as illegal and unjustified for want of compliance of section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, the concerned workman has been ordered to be reinstated with 10% back wages.

(2.) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.

(3.) AS has been observed by the Labour Court, the concerned workman was not cross-examined by the petitioner inspite of repeated opportunities been given. The evidence led on behalf of the petitioner was also absolutely vague wherein the witness admitted that in absence of record, he cannot say as to how many days the concerned workman had worked.