H.K. Rathod, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. U.T. Mishra for petitioner and learned advocate Mr. D.G. Chauhan for respondent in both petitions. Both petitions are having similar facts and petitioner in both petitions has challenged order passed by Industrial Court in Appeal (IC) N0.49 of 2008 and 50 of 2008 dated 8.9.2010 where appeal which was preferred by respondent Company has been allowed and order passed by Labour Court in Misc. Application Nos.214/2004 and 215/2004, dated 30.9.2008, Exh.8, has been set aside.

2. Brief facts of both petitions are that the service of workman-petitioner was terminated on 12.8.1991. Therefore, T. Application was preferred by workman which was withdrawn on 6.6.1996 by advocate of workman without consulting the petitioner. Therefore, application was made by workman before Labour Court for restoration of T. Application with a prayer to condone delay in filing such application for restoration. Therefore, by order dated 30.9.2008, Labour Court, Ahmedabad has restored both T. Application which orders were challenged by respondent Company before Industrial Court in both Appeals which came to be allowed. Therefore, that orders are challenged in bot