ORDER

C.A. Nos. 3389, 3390, 3387, 3388 and 3392 of 1996 [@ SLP Nos. 1918, 1919, 10190 and 17577/95, 6163/93 and C.A. No. 2431/94]

Leave granted.

2. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides.

3. Shri N.G. Malik, E.D. Packer was recruited on September 21, 1991 and sent for training from September 23, 1991 to October 2, 1991. The respondent came to be appointed as a substitute w.e.f. September 21, 1991 without observing any formality of appointment, as a stop-gap arrangement. It would appear that N.G. Malik had not reported for duty after the training and the respondent continued in the post of E.D. Packer. On August 2, 1993, without notice, he was terminated from service. He approached the CAT, Ahmedabad Bench in O.S. No. 51/1994 and same are the facts in all other cases.

4. The Tribunal by its impugned order dated May 12, 1994 allowed the case, set aside the orders of termination of Sailesh Kumar on the ground that the appellant is an industry, the respondent is a workman governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act ). Under Section 25F, no notice was issued terminating the service nor retrenchment compensation was paid, therefore, the respondent is entitled