M.Y. Eqbal, J.

In the instant case, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 23rd June 1994 passed by the presiding Officer, Labour Court Patna in Reference Case No. 41 of 1990 whereby and where under the Labour Court held that the termination of service of respondent no. 2 was illegal and invalid because of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'said Act'). By the said award the Presiding Officer further held that instead of re-instatement, the employee, respondent no. 2 was entitled to 3.33 years of his salary, inclusive of other allowances and also to get his full back wages till the date of award of the Labour Court.

2. The petitioner who is an Establishment deals with whole-sale business of kerosin Oil and fertilizer having its Office at Patna. According to the petitioner the respondent no. 2 applied for his appointment as a driver of Tank Lorry and was appointed initially for a period of one year on 11th May 1987. He was entrusted to drive the Tank Lorry No. BPZ 2433. The term or appointment was duly accepted by him. After completion of probationary period of one year it was further extended for another year i.e. upto 10th May 1989. According to the petitioner, Management, the respondent no. 2 stated absenting from duty from 1st January 1989, without any information and/or without getting any leave sanctioned. The petitioner by registered letter dated 31 at January 1989 informed respondent no. 2 about his absence without any information. He was directed to join his duty within a week. The registered letter was received by him but even then he did not join nor did he send any information. The management again wrote a letter dated 21st April 1989 to the General Secretary, Bihar Tankers Association and informed him about his absence from 1st January 1989. The Management's further case was that again by a letter dated 20th April 1989, the respondent no 2 was directed to join his duty but he refused to receive the letter. Having no alternative, the Management on the date when his extended probationary period concluded i.e. 10th May 1989, terminated his service One month's salary was also sent to him by demand draft According to the Management, during the period of his absence the respondent no. 2 was gainfully employed and be was plying his own tank lorry purchased in partnership with another person. He after a long period, reported for duty which was not accepted by the Management. The concerned respondent thereafter raised an industrial dispute which was conciliated and having no settlement, between the parties arrived at, the dispute was referred for adjudication under Section 10 (1) (c) of the said Act, to the Presiding Officer. Labour Court Patna. The dispute referred to is quoted here-in-below :

"Whether the termination of service of Dhup Lal Mahto, Driver, is proper and justified? If not, should he be given compensation ? "

3. On receipt of Notification of reference notices were issued to the parties who eventually appeared and filed their written statement. The case of respondent no. 2 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'workman') before the Presiding Officer was that he was initially appointed in the year 1971 and was Posted at Calcutta Office of the Management. In the month of January 1985, he was transferred to Patna Branch where he started working with sincerity after assuming his charge. According to him, his elder brother namely, late Paras Nath Mahto fell ill in the month or January 1989 for whose treatment he took leave from the Manager of the petitioner. The workman alleged that it took about four months in the treatment of his brother who ultimately died on 14th April 1989. Thereafter the workman himself fell. The workman further took the plea that he had been applying for extension of leave but was not receiving any reply thereof from the Management side. When the workman is said to have recovered from his illness,