JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

A counter affidavit has been filed in L.P.A. No. 1291 of 2019 by Mr. Nandlal Kumar Singh, the learned Advocate for the respondents, in Court.

2. Let it be taken on record.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. The two Appeals, namely, L.P.A. Nos. 1128 of 2019 and 1291 of 2019 have been taken up together and are being disposed off by this common order.

5. The aforesaid Appeals are on behalf of the employer and the workmen respectively.

6. With respect to removal/retrenchment of seven of the workmen, there was a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short,theI.D.Act,1947) for adjudication whether their termination was justified and if so, what relief could be granted to them.

7. On behalf of the workmen, it was contended before the Tribunal in Reference Case No. 1 of 1997 that they had joined the employer/Gas Agency between the year 1983 to 1993 and had remained in continuous service till 17.12.1994 when they were terminated, which letter of termination was found hung over the outer wall of the Gas Agency. It was their consistent case before the Tribunal that they had made complaints to the management for not being provided with the benefits and facilities in terms of the law applicable to such establishments and they were also not being provided with minimum wages fixed by the State Government. No service card or attendance register was maintained in the said Gas Agency.

8. When such grievances were not addressed by the employer, the issues were taken before the Labour Department where an attempt was made by the Conciliation Officer to effect a settlement. Consequently, a tripartite settlement agreement was arrived at. However, before such settlement could be given effect to, the workmen were terminated from service.

9. It was contended by those workmen that the Gas Agency was closed between 15.12.1994 to 16.12.1994 and when they went to offer their services on 17.12.1994, they found the letter of termination hung over an outer wall of the Agency. They were not given one month’s notice nor were paid the salary of one month as mandated under Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947. There was a specific statement by the workmen before the Tribunal that they had remained unemployed for all the while.

10. The management/employer firstly contended that the referral to the Labour Court under the I.D. Act, 1947 was wrong and that such dispute could have been resolved only under the Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. The contention of the workmen that they were not being afforded minimum wages and privileges and facilities to which they are entitled under the labour laws was sought to be negatived by urging that no charter of demand by them was ever put forth to the employer or in the conciliation proceedings before the Labour Superintendent. In fact, during the conciliation proceedings, the Labour Superintendent was made aware of the fact that the services offered by the workmen was absolutely deficient. One of them was found to be issuing refills to consumers without cash-memo, whereas another was charged with issuing domestic consumer cards to persons without any authorization from the Agency/employer. There were allegations of fake and false receipts and of irregular attendance of those workmen. No explanation was offered by the workmen for their unauthorized absence. Apart from this, the overall performance of these workmen was absolutely unsatisfactory and, therefore, their services were done away with as they were only ad-hoc-employees.

11. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that since there was an admission on the part of the employer that in the conciliation proceeding before the Labour Superintendent, the employer had participated and which had ended in a tripartite agreement, the charter of demands of the workmen was therefore known to the employer. However, the Tribunal did not find any document or evidence to come to any definite finding that the workmen were giv