1. The appellants have challenged the judgment dated 20th March, 2013 whereby the learned Single Judge has set aside the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘CGIT’).

Factual matrix

2. The facts of all the appeals are common and, therefore, the facts in LPA 408/2013 are being noted herein.

3. Gopal, appellant in LPA 408/2013 (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) issued a notice of demand dated 10th September, 2002 to the respondent in which he claimed to be continuously working with the respondent since July 1994 on the post of Guard at a salary of Rs. 2,650/- per month. The appellant sought reinstatement with backwages.

4. The conciliation proceedings were held before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The respondent in its reply before Assistant Labour Commissioner, denied having ever employed or terminated the appellant and stated that the various functions of the department were carried out through the contractor.

5. Upon failure of the Conciliation proceedings, the Central Government referred the following industrial dispute to the learned CGIT:

“Whether the termination of services of S/Shri Har