JUDGMENT :

S.N. Prasad, J.

The award dated 21.12.1991 passed in I.D. Case No. 36 of 1988 is under challenge whereby and where under, the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding therein that the termination of service of the workman w.e.f. 10.11.1986 is neither legal nor justified and accordingly the workman has been held entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages.

2. Brief facts of the case of the workman is that he was appointed vide order No.6146 dated 24.8.1985 as substitute Conductor and subsequently he was appointed as per Order No.2400 dated 7.4.1984 allowed to continue till 22.2.1985. Again appointed vide order dated 14.6.1985, allowed to continue till 26.1.1987. On 24.1.1987 his service was terminated after expiry of the term and while doing so, no reasonable opportunity was given to him to explain the matter and no enquiry was held, hence action of the management is illegal and motivated.

3. While on the other hand, case of the management is that the workman was appointed as substitute Conductor, it was extended under various office orders till 10.11.1986. His service was terminated w.e.f. 10.11.1986 and the conductors who joined after him w