JUDGMENT - H.H. KANTHARIA, J.:---The petitioner was appointed as an Office peon in an existing vacancy, by the first respondent, vide appointment letter dated 24th October, 1975, on probation for two years in the first instance, on usual scale of pay admissible under the rules as would be in force from time to time, with effect from 20th October, 1975 F.N. The probation period came to an end on 28th October, 1977 but the petitioner was continued in the employment. However, he received an order dated 18th September, 1978 informing him that his services were terminated and that he shall be paid a sum equivalent to the sum of pay and allowances for the period of one month (in lieu of the period of notice) calculated at the same rate at which he was drawing the salary immediately before the date on which the said order was served on him. Being aggrieved, the petitioner raised an Industrial dispute before the Commissioner of Labour (Central). Conciliation proceedings were commenced but since no settlement could be arrived at, a failure report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer on 27th November, 1979. On consideration of the failure report, the Government of India referred the said dispute for adjudication to the second respondent (Industrial Tribunal, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Court No. 2, Bombay) in the following terms:

"Whether the action of the management of India Security Press, Nasik Road, Nasik, Maharashtra, in terminating the services of Shri Sharad Hari Deshpande, Office Peon vide Office Order No. Admn. 89/M dated the 18-9-1978 is justified and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. The second respondent by his Award dated 22nd October, 1982, held that the termination of services of the petitioner was invalid and illegal and that it amounted to retrenchment. He further held that the retrenchment itself was not valid and legal because the procedure contemplated under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was not followed. He however, refused the relief of reinstatement to the petitioner firstly because the petitioner orally informed him (the Tribunal) that he was gainfully employed from May 1980 and secondly because the petitioner had succeeded only on technical point. The second respondent, therefore, granted to the petitioner the retrenchment compensation and wages for 20 months.

3. When this Award was brought to the notice of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, a review application dated 26th October, 1982 was made to the second respondent that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard with regard to his employment during the intervening period and that an oral statement made in that behalf should not have been accepted by the second respondent to refuse relief of reinstatement. The second respondent heard the said review application and by his order dated 4th November, 1982 held that he had no powers to hear a review application especially when he had disposed of the reference on merits. However, according to him, he committed a procedural error in not recording the evidence of the petitioner about the particulars of his employment during the intervening period and relying upon an oral statement of the petitioner that he was at the relevant time gainfully employed. He, therefore, allowed the review application to that extent and permitted the petitioner to adduced evidence with regard to his employment and quantum of income therefrom subsequent to the order of termination of his services.

4. Thus, after receiving further evidence with regard to the particulars of the employment of the petitioner during the intervening period, the second respondent by his award dated 7th December, 1982 directed that so much of the amount that was earned by the petitioner during the intervening period should be deducted while making payment to him of arrears of wages and retrenchment compensation awarded as per the first award