K.M. Thaker, J.

1. Heard learned advocates for petitioner and respondent. In present petition, the petitioner has challenged award dated 28.11.2006 passed by learned Labour Court at Gandhidham (Kachchh) in Reference (LCR) No. 29 of 2003, whereby learned Labour Court rejected the Reference. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision and award, the petitioner i.e. the original claimant has taken up present petition.

2. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the material available on record of this petition and from submissions by learned advocates that the claimant raised industrial dispute with the allegation that the employer illegally terminated his service by oral order/instruction on 04.02.2001 and that despite the fact that he had worked continuously and regularly from December, 1992 to February, 2001, the employer discontinued his service without complying provisions prescribed by law and in violation of principles of natural justice.

3. Appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication. The dispute was registered in Reference (LCR) No. 29 of 2003. In his statement of claim, the claimant alleged that he was in service with opponent Company and that he joined his service in December, 1992. He also claimed that he was paid Rs. 2800/- per month and that though his designation was site-supervisor, he was required to work as loader and was engaged in work of loading and unloading and to also do the work related to custom clearance. With such allegation he demanded that he should be reinstated in service.

4. Opponent employer failed to file reply/written statement. Learned Labour Court took note of the fact that the opponent employer has not filed written statement. When the claimant moved application that stage of filing written statement by the employer may be closed, learned Labour Court passed the order and closed the stage of written statement/reply by the employer. Thereafter, evidence of the claimant was recorded. The Opponent employer failed to lead any evidence, either documentary or oral. Thereafter, the opponent employer failed written submissions.

5. Learned Labour Court considered the material available on record including the written arguments by opponent employer and thereafter passed the award which is impugned in present petition.

6. Mr. Malay Patel learned advocate for Mr. Dagli, learned advocate for the applicant i.e. original claimant assailed the award and submitted that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate that the claimant was employed and working as workman and that he was not employed in Supervisory category and he was no working as Supervisor and without appreciating the said fact, learned Labour Court held that the claimant was employed and was working as Supervisor. He further submitted that learned Labour Court also failed to appreciate that the claimant's service was terminated illegally and arbitrarily. He submitted that claimant worked with Opponent employer from December, 1992 to February, 2001 i.e. for almost 9 years and that, therefore, his service could not have been terminated without complying provision under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act and without granting opportunity of hearing. He submitted that in present case neither opportunity of hearing was granted nor retrenchment compensation was paid. He also submitted that even notice pay was also not paid and the service of the claimant was terminated by oral instruction. He submitted that without appreciating the said facts the learned Labour Court rejected the Reference. He submitted that the opponent employer failed to place any evidence on record contrary to the documents placed on record by the claimant and the claimant's oral evidence and that, therefore, the impugned award is erroneous and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside.

7. Mr. Shah learned advocate for the opponent employer cold not dispute the fact that the employer did not file reply/written statement and also did not le