SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Vs. JUDGE LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. By this writ petition the petitioners -State has challenged the award of the labour Court dated 27.06.1994 (Annexure/6) whereby the respondent No.2 who was working in Femine Relief Works has been reinstated whose termination has been declared illegal and void on account of non - compliance of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and further he has been granted the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service with all back wages.

(2.) THE fact relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy is that the respondent - workman was appointed on 01.10.1987 and has worked upto 30.11.1988 in the Femine Relief Works.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners -State further submits that the labour court has not considered the provisions of the Act of 1964 and further misconstrued the provisions of the notification issued on May 1988 by saying that the appointment of the respondent No.2 was on a prior date.