The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of an employee's services must comply with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, including notice and compensation requirements.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. Vide this common judgement, this Court intends to dispose of the following Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:

(i) W.P. (C) No. 1929 of 2000 titled as Gujarat State Export Corporation Ltd. vs. Mukesh Tyagi and Anr. vide which the Petitioner is challenging the award dated 12.11.1999 (`impugned award') passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in I.D. No. 1574/90.

(ii) W.P. (C) No. 3470 of 2003 titled as Mukesh Tyagi vs. Gujrat State Export Corporation Ltd. vide which the Petitioner is praying for issuance of an appropriate writ for directing the Gujrat State Export Corporation Ltd. to regularize the services of the petitioner along with consequential benefits as a permanent employee.

2. It is the case of the workman/Sh. Mukesh Tyagi that he was appointed by the Gujarat State Export Corporation Ltd. ("management") on 08.09.1987 at its Pragati Maidan Office, New Delhi as a Typist-cum-clerk. The services of the workman were terminated by the management on 16.04.1989. A demand notice was served upon the management on 15.05.1989, however no response was received. Consequently, an industrial dispute was raised by the workman, which on 13.07.1990 was referred by the Appropriate Government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("I.D. Act") to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The dispute was referred to the learned Labour Court with the following terms of reference:

"Whether the termination of services of Shri Mukesh Tyagi is illegal and/or unjustified and if so to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

3. The workman filed his statement of claim wherein it was averred that he was in the service for a period of 1.5 years earning wages of Rs.900/- per mensem. It was further contended that his services were illegally terminated by the management without conducting an enquiry and following provisions of the I.D. Act.

4. To counter the claims made by the workman, the management by way of its written statement raised a preliminary objection that the reference has not been made by an `appropriate authority' and the statement of claim was not accompanied by relevant documents, hence are liable to be rejected. Further, the management stated in its written statement that the workman was appointed as a casual worker for a specific period and his services could have been terminated at any time or on expiry of the specified term automatically. The Management also alleged misconduct on part of the workman during the employment period as he undertook employment with Karnataka Government Pavilion in Delhi and enrolled himself in regular B.Com course, both of which were against the terms and conditions of the service. Further, that the workman was intimated beforehand in the first week of March 1989 that his services will be no longer required after 15.04.1989 as the operation from Delhi branch was planned to be discontinued.

5. Learned Labour Court after hearing both the parties and perusing the evidence brought on record, passed the impugned award dated 12.11.1999 answering the term of reference in favour of the workman. The learned Labour Court was of the view that that the management failed in establishing that the workman did not tender his continuous service for more than 240 days in a year preceding his termination. It further held that workman's services were terminated in violation of the provision of section 25-F of the I.D. Act, hence such termination is void ab initio. Therefore, Learned Labour Court directed the management to reinstate the workman along with payment of the full back wages.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the management has preferred W.P. (C) 1929/2000, challenging the validity of the impugned award dated 12.11.1999. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide an ex-parte order dated 17.09.2013, modified the impugned award to an extent that the management shall pay the workma