The provisions of Rule 77 of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 are mandatory in character and their non-compliance renders the termination of the services of a workman illegal.

1. - These special appeals are directed against the Judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 16.10.1990 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3740 of 1990 whereby the learned single Judge while dismissing the Writ Petition by General Manager, N. Rly, has upheld the Award of the learned Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, dated 27.10.1989 with the modification that the respondent Prahlad Kumar (workman) will be entitled 'to reinstatement with 50% back wages only.

2. Aggrieved against this Judgment of the learned single Judge, these two special appeals have been filed: one by the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi and Others; and the other by the Railway Casual Labour Union. As they are directed against the same impugned Judgment of the learned single Judge, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common Judgment.

3. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of these appeals briefly stated are: that the casual labour Prahlad Kumar was appointed initially as a Khalasi on 24.8,1979 by the Works Inspector, Northern Railway, Hanumangarh Junction. Later on, he was appointed by the Railway Traffic Inspector, Allahabad on 9.5.1981. It is alleged that he was appointed as T.L.A. and his services were terminated by the Railway Traffic Inspector, Allahabad in the afternoon of 5.8.81 and, therefore, an industrial dispute was raised by the Railway Casual Labour Union on behalf of the Workman Prahlad Kumar and that dispute came to be referred to the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, along with the dispute of one Prithviraj Singh. The industrial dispute of Prithiviraj Singh was dismissed by the learned Central Industrial Tribunal but the termination of the services of workman Prahlad Kumar was held against the provisions of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') and Rule 77 of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and the workman Prahlad Kumar was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages. Before the learned Central Industrial Tribunal, both the parties filed affidavits and an opportunity of cross-examination was afforded and, thereafter, the learned Central Industrial Tribunal felt that in this case, there is a clear-cut violation of the provisions of Section 25G of the Act and Rule 77 of the Rules and, therefore, the aforesaid order was passed.

4. Against this order, a Writ Petition was filed on behalf of the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi and Others and that writ petition came to be dismissed by the learned single Judge of this Court as aforesaid and hence these two special appeals.

5. In the appeal filed by General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi & Ors. it was claimed that it is not at all a case of termination of services but it is a case of relinquishment of services. It was further submitted that the provisions of Section 25G of the Act and Rule 77 of the Rules are not mandatory in character. It was contended that it has not been shown that anybody junior to the workman Prahlad Kumar has been retained in service and, therefore, the workman is not entitled to any relief specially with full back wages. It was further contended that in this case, the industrial dispute has been raised after about one year of the alleged termination of services of the workman Prahlad Kumar. Moreover, his work was of temporary labour allocation and whenever that work came to an end, he was not kept in service. It was claimed that the Workman has left his services voluntarily and it was because of this that he did not raise an industrial dispute for one year and, therefore, it does not amount to retrenchment and hence, this appeal should be allowed and the Award of the learned Central Industrial Tribunal as also the Judgment of the learned single Judge should be set aside.

6. In the appeal filed by Railway Casual Labour Union, it has been claimed that once it is held that the termination