JUDGMENT:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner, is the respondent in complaint (ULP) No.43 of 2007 pending in the Court of learned Judge, Labour Court at Aurangabad, Said complaint is filed by the respondent. Parties hereinafter are referred to their status as complainant and respondent for convenience. Copy of the complaint is on record. (Page 19 of the compilation). In paragraph no.1 statement is made that complainant and respondent are having relationship of employer and employee. In paragraph no.2 it is pleaded that complainant has been appointed as a Clerk in the stores department of the respondent. Said appointment is oral. made in the month of January, .1994. From the appointment, complainant was in continuous service for more than 240 days till the date of oral termination. This oral termination is alleged in the month of January. 2007. In paragraph no.2 it is stated that cause of action arose on January 24, 2007. He claims that he was driving salary of Rs.5,000/- on the date of oral termination, was required to remain present for 24 hours, was working with stores department, quarter was allotted to the complainant for residence purpose, quarter was in Possession of the complainant. Overtime was paid to the complainant. Grievance is raised in paragraph no.4 that complainant has been terminated without following due process of law and thus respondent is engaged in unfair labour practice. There is no compliance of provisions of section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act according to the complainant. In paragraph no.7 contention is raised that all concerned documents in respect of service of complainant are in custody of the respondent. Some documents which were in possession of the complainant have been filed alongwith the complaint. This complaint seems to have been filed on 24.1.2007 under section 28. 30 r/w. Item no.1 (a). (b). (f) of Schedule IV of M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act. 1971 ("Act. 1971 for short). After filing the complaint, application has been filed by the complainant seeking allotment of work and setting aside oral termination dated 24.1.2007. After entering appearance respondent filed written statement} say to the complaint. Annexure •'R'" is copy of the said written statement (page 44). In paragraph no.1 it has been pleaded that complainant was never employed by the answering respondent in any of the capacities and the employer and employee relationship never existed between complainant and respondent. In paragraph no.7 same thing is reiterated with further pleading that the watch and ward of CPWD. Stores located at Air-port premises. Chikalthana. Aurangabad was arranged by calling tenders from different security Agencies/service providers. It is further pleaded that security agency to whom the work contract is given by the CPWD., has employed the complaint. Further it is pleaded that Oil account of termination of the contract it seems that the security agency has terminated the services of the complainant. Further statement is made that CPWD, is not at all responsible for termination, This written statement Seems to have been filed on 21.7.2007.

3. Learned trial Court after hearing the parties, on Exh.U-2 application framed four issues for determination. Issue no. 1 framed by the trial Court was in respect of prima facie case, if proved by the complainant. Second issue was in respect of balance of convenience. Third issue was regarding irreparable loss. Fourth issue is as to whether the complainant approached the Court with clean hands. Finding on this issue/issues is recorded in affirmative in favour of the complainant. The trial Court allowed the application Exh.U-2. directed the respondent to keep the complainant on work (reinstatement) with wages. This order by the trial Court was dated 11.4.2008. This order was subjected to Revision under section 44 of the Act of 1971 by the respondent. This revision compl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document