JUDGMENT :

R.M. CHHAYA, J.

1. ADMIT. Mr. Gogia, learned advocate waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent no. 2. With consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

2. Feeling aggrieved and being dissatisfied by the common judgment and order dated 19.9.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application no. 5843/2014, whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to enhance the compensation ordered by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-.

3. It is the case of the employee-appellant that he was working with the respondent - Bank as a Watchman for a period of 3 years i.e. from 11.3.1994 to 9.9.1997. Record indicates that appropriate Government referred the dispute raised by the appellant being Reference (ITC) no. 1999/99 which was renumbered as Reference (CGIT) no. 1104/2004, wherein Paragraph 2 reads as under:-

"2. The case of the workman (the 2nd party) as per the statement of claim (Ext. 2) is that he was working at Surendranagar branch of SBI as a peon w.e.f. 11.03.1994 and wages per day was Rs. 18/- and lastly he was getting Rs. 50/- per day at the time of termination. He was doing manual works of different types regularly and his works was of permanent nature and he was working from 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. But he was orally terminated by the 1st party on 09.09.1997 and he was not given legal dues or any retrenchment compensation, where as he worked for 240 days in a year. He worked for 77 days in 1994, 260 days in 1995, 251 days in 1996 and 122 days in 1997. The 1st party committed breach of section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947. The 1st party employed new person after his termination and thus committed breach of section 25(H) of the I.D. Act, 1947 The 1st party bank have not taken into consideration of his past record of service before termination. He failed to get employment elsewhere and he is unemployed, facing financial crisis. On these scores, prayer is that the action of the 1st party in terminating him is illegal and unjust, he be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service w.e.f. 09.09.1997 and also for cost of the litigation and to pass order to which the workman is found entitled."

4. The allegation and demand by the appellant was opposed by the Bank by filing a written statement Exh. 5, wherein it is averred thus:-

"3. As against this, the case of the 1st party (Bank) as per written statement (Ext. 5) is that the 2nd party workman was a casual daily rated worker and he himself left his service and it is not a case of dismissal, discharge or termination. The 2nd party was called to perform the casual work at Surendranagar branch of the Bank. No permission of Zonal office of S.B.I. was taken before taking the service of the 2nd party at Surendranagar branch. It has been denied that the 1st party (Bank) had terminated the service of the workman on 09.09.1997 orally. The workman himself has stopped coming to Bank and so no question of payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay to him. But if this court comes to the conclusion that the 2nd party workman was entitled to retrenchment compensation and notice pay, the same may be awarded to him but he is not entitled for reinstatement. However, the 1st party have denied the averments of statement of claim para wise. On these scores, prayer is that the 2nd party is not entitled to relief and the reference is fit to be rejected with cost."

5. Mr. Patadiya, learned advocate for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge instead of enhancing the compensation should have ordered reinstatement in view of the fact that the Tribunal has categorically come to the conclusion that there is violation of mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the learned Single Judge ought to have awarded reinstatement.

6. Per contra, Mr. Gogia, learned advocate for