( 1 ) HEARD Mr. H. C. Rawal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE petitioner Corporation has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Surat in Reference No. 379 / 1999 dated 1/01/2001, wherein the labour court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service without backwages of interim period. This Court has issued RULE returnable on 22nd March, 2002 and granted ad-interim relief in terms of para-7[c] of the prayer clause vide order dated 8th February, 2002. However, notice of RULE issued by this Court has remained unserved on the respondent work man.

( 3 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Rawal for petitioner Corporation has submitted that serious misconduct has been committed by the respondent workman, even though the labour court has exercised the powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is basic error committed by the labour court while granting such relief in favour of the respondent workman. Learned advocate Mr. Rawal has also submitted that the labour court has also committed gross error in coming to the conclusion that misconduct is not found to have proved and therefore, award in question is required