( 1 ) SINCE both these petitions arise out of common judgment and award and raise common questions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) SPECIAL Civil Application No. 5186 of 1996 is filed by the Deputy Executive engineer, Panchayat, Junagadh, who is the employer and the respondent is the workman. They are hereinafter referred to as the employer and workman for the sake of convenience and brevity. Second Special civil Application No. 6126 of 1996 is filed by the workman claiming interest on the amount awarded by way of backwagcs and seeking direction for forthwith reinstatement. In the employers petition, the chali lenge is against the impugned order of reinstatement and full backwages granted to the workman by the Labour Court adjudicating the industrial dispute between the parties which had been referred for adjudication under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act ).

( 3 ) THE workman contended before the labour Court that he was working as work-charge labour with the employer since 23. 1 1. 81 on daily wage of Rs. 15/-as a helper and that though he was appointed as a helper, he was directed to work as a clerk and paid wages of a labourer. The workman came to be terminated, according to him, on 30. 6. 83 and on 1. 8. 88. he issued demand notice which was not replied. The workman was also not taken back in the service. He had also contended that a new recruitment had taken place and his juniors continued at the time when he was terminated. Therefore, he had moved the competent authority for reference and the reference was made to the Labour Court on the issue whether the workman was entitled to be reinstated with full backwages or not.

( 4 ) THE employer contested the claim of the workman by filing written statement ex. 9 in the Labour Court wherein, he, inter alia, contended that the workman had remained absent and he had abandoned the work and that there was no question of illegal or unauthorised termination.

( 5 ) UPON appreciation of the facts and circumstances and the evidence, the Labour court allowed the reference and directed the employer to reinstate the workman to his original post with full backwages by passing an award on 20. 11. 95. Therefore, the first petition is filed by the employer challenging the order of reinstatement and backwages. The second petition is filed by : the workman seeking further direction for time limit and interest on the backwages. Learned advocate Ms Panchal while appearing on behalf of the employer, firstly, contended that the reference was made and award is passed against the Executive Engineer, panchayat, Junagadh and he was not the employer. Therefore, the award is required to be quashed. This submission cannot be accepted in this petition as it is a bolt from blue. No such specific and clear averment or contention was ever raised in the written reply before the labour Court or no review was sought on that ground. This contention is not a pure question of law. It requires investigation of facts. Therefore, such a contention cannot be allowed to be adjudicated for the first time in a petition. On this ground, the said contention is rejected. Secondly, the aforesaid contention that the Executive Engineer, Panchayat, junagadh was not the employer is factually also not sustainable. It is very clear from the evidence that the petitioner was engaged by the Executive Engineer. There is no dispute about the fact that he is the head of the Department. He was, therefore, the employer.

( 6 ) SECTION 2 (g) of ID Act defines the expression employer. Section 2 (g) reads as under:" (G) employer means (i) in relation to an industry carried on by or under the authority of any department of the Central Government or a State government, the authority prescribed in this behalf, or where no authority is prescribed, the head of the department; (ii) in relation to an industry carried on by or on behalf of a local authority, the chief executive offic