1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The contentions of the petitioner are summarized as under:-

(a) The petitioner was appointed as a “peon” in place of his father on 01/01/2002.

(b) He was terminated from employment w.e.f. 01/03/2003.

(c) He had challenged his termination by filing complaint (U.L.P.) No.41/2003 before the Labour Court.

(d) By an interim order, he was directed to be reinstated.

(e) This order came to be modified in Revision (ULP) No.111/2003 and 75% of the last drawn wages were directed to be paid during the pendency of the complaint.

(f) Finally, the complaint (U.L.P.) No.41/2003 was allowed and the termination of the petitioner was held to be invalid w.e.f. 01/03/2003.

(g) However, compensation of Rs.25,000/- alongwith costs of Rs. 500/- was directed to be paid by the respondents in lieu of reinstatement of the petitioner.

(h) The petitioner, therefore, challenged the said judgment and order of the Labour Court dated 19/08/2005 by filing revision (U.L.P.) NO.63/2005.

(i) By judgment and order dated 01/08/2011, revision (U.L.P.) No. 63/2005 filed by the petitioner and revision (U.L.P.) No