ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The respondent was appointed as a daily-wager by the appellants on 25-7 -1988. Admittedly, he worked for about 170 days. According to the respondent after this his services were terminated by the appellants. According to the appellants, the respondent left on his own accord. Be that as it may, seven years later, in 1995, a demand notice was served by the respondent on the appellants claiming reinstatement and back wages. The dispute was ultimately referred to the Labour Court which framed the following three issues:

"1. Whether the reference is time-barred as alleged in PO of W/3.

2. Whether termination of services of the workman is justified and in order?

3. Relief."

3. On the issue of limitation, the Labour Court relied on Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Coop. Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd.1 and decided d the issue in favour of the respondent. On the question of termination, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that although Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, had not been violated by the appellants, nevertheless Sections 25-0 and 25-H had been violated insofar as others who were junior to the respondent had been retained in serv