JUDGMENT :

Inderjeet Singh, J.

1. Since in both these writ petitions the same award passed by the Labour Court dated 16.11.2015 is under challenge, hence these writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by the present order.

2. The Labour Court in the present matter vide Award dated 16.11.2015 has held the alleged termination as null and void, however, directed for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 Lakh in lieu of reinstatement.

3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3887/2016 has been filed by Rajasthan State Bridge Construction Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as "employer") with the prayer to quash and set aside the award dated 16.11.2015 passed by the Labour Court whereas S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4017/2016 has been filed by Mahendra Singh (hereinafter to be referred as workman) challenging the award dated 16.11.2015 passed by the Labour Court with the prayer to modify the award and direct the respondents for reinstatement instead of compensation.

4. Brief facts as emerge from the record are that statement of claim was filed by the workman before the Labour Court with the averments that he was engaged/appointed by the employer on the post of Driver in January, 1991 and he worked upto 19.01.2001 and he was orally removed from service by the employer on 20.01.2001. It was also averred that prior to oral termination of the workman neither any notice/charge-sheet was served to him nor any inquiry was held and therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice. It was also stated that the employer has violated the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 while taking action of removal of the workman from service. It was also stated that the workman has a right of being regularized in service as the other persons have been regularized and he has been ousted from service. It was also stated that he had continuously worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and prayed that while declaring his oral termination as null and void, the employer be directed to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits from the date of termination i.e. 20.01.2001.

5. Reply was filed on behalf of the employer and while denying the averments made in the statement of claim, it was stated that the workman was never engaged/appointed by the employer in service, as such there is no question of regularization of his service. It was also stated that all the appointments are made by the employer after following the due procedure under the law and no appointment was offered by the employer to the workman. It was further stated that the workman was neither engaged by the employer nor he had worked for continuous 240 days in a calendar year and all the averments made by the workman were denied by the employer in toto.

6. The workman in support of his claim produced affidavit of himself and submitted documents Ex. W-1 to Ex. W-7 and from the side of the employer affidavits of AC Mathur, Devendra Kumar Ajwani were produced and both the parties also cross-examined the affidavits and witness.

7. The Labour Court after considering the material and the evidence on record, vide award dated 16.11.2015 held the termination of the workman from 20.01.2001 to be null and void, however in lieu of reinstatement directed for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 Lakh. Aggrieved by the award dated 16.11.2015, the workman as well as the employer both have filed the writ petitions of which reference has been made above.

8. Counsel for the employer submitted that the workman has never been their employee and therefore the finding recorded by the Labour Court is perverse. Counsel further submits that the Labour Court has committed serious illegality in holding that the workman had completed continuous 240 days in a calendar year prior to his termination from service by the employer. Counsel further submits that even the compensation as awarded by the Labour Court is not legally justified and las