K.M. Thaker, J.

1. Heard Ms. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner-Electricity Company and Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the workman.

2. These two petitions are heard and decided together since both the petitions arise from same and common order.

3. The Electricity Company has filed the petition being Special Civil Application No. 6394 of 2005 and challenged the award dated 05.01.2004, passed by learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad, in Reference (L.C.A.) No. 1764 of 1994, whereby the learned Labour Court has directed the Electricity Company to reinstate the workman on his original post with continuity of service and to pay back-wages for the period from 24.06.1998. The Electricity Company is aggrieved by the said directions. The workman has filed the petition and challenged very same order dated 05.01.2004 passed by learned Labour Court in Reference (LCA) No. 1764/94 and challenged the decision of learned Labour Court of denying the back-wages for the period prior to 24.06.1998.

4. So far as factual backdrop is concerned, it has emerged from the impugned order that concerned workman was appointed as Sub-overseer by virtue of appointment order dated 04.02.1991, which was signed and issued under the name and authority of Superintending Engineer (Transmission) Electricity Board.

5. After some time, the Electricity Company sought to terminate the service of the concerned workman on the ground that the appointment was made illegally and by officer who did not have authority to appoint the concerned workman and at the relevant time, there was no vacancy for the said post and also on the ground that the appointment was made without sanction and approval of the head office. At that stage, the concerned workman preferred writ petition. In the said proceeding, initially the Court granted stay against termination of the concerned workman. However, subsequently interim relief was vacated, and thereafter, the Electricity Company passed order dated 01.06.1992 and terminated service of the concerned workman.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the said termination order, the workman raised industrial dispute. Appropriate government referred the dispute vide order dated 10.08.1994. The said reference was registered as Reference (LCA) No. 1764 of 1994. During the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the concerned workman filed his statement of claim and alleged that his appointment was made pursuant to interview and his appointment was legal and proper. He also alleged that from the date of his appointment i.e. 04.02.1991, he worked with the Electricity Company continuously, however, without any fault on his part, his service came to be terminated illegally and arbitrarily vide order dated 01.06.1992. He also alleged that though he had worked continuously for more than 12 months and though he had worked for not less than 240 during the said period, his service was terminated without payment of compensation or notice pay. He also alleged that his service was not terminated for any mis-conduct, however, any compensation was not paid to him at the time of termination and that therefore, termination order is illegal and it should be set aside.

7. The reference was opposed by the Electricity Company, who filed written statement and disputed and denied the allegation by the workman. The Electricity Company claimed that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal and unauthorized. It was claimed that when the concerned workman was appointed, there was no vacancy in the cadre and for the post of Sub-overseer and the officer, who issued appointment order was not authorized to appoint the concerned workman and the appointment of the concerned workman was made without sanction and approval from the head office. It was also submitted that when the fact about the said unauthorized appointment came to the notice of the Electricity Company, the service of the concerned workman came to be terminated. On such premise, the Electricity Company claimed that the