The judgment establishes that the applicability of Section 31 of the Beedi and Cigar Workers Act and the interpretation of cases as transfers rather than illegal dismissal were central legal principles in reaching the decision.

( 1 ) THIS order shall dispose of Misc. Petition no. 987/1990 (Khemchand Motilal Jain v. Appellate Authority under Beedi and Cigar Act and another) and Misc. Petition No. 978/1990 (Khemchand Motilal Jain v. Appellate authority under Beedi and Cigar Act and another ).

( 2 ) THE respondent No. 2 of each petition preferred appeal to the appellate authority and assistant Labour Commissioner, Sagar division, Sagar appointed under Beedi and cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) inter alia pleading that the present petitioners/employer by playing unfair trade practise terminated their services and as their termination was contrary to the principles of law, therefore, they were entitled to be reinstated with the back wages. The case of respondent Kale Khan was registered as appeal No. 157/1987 while the case of respondent Gul Khai was registered as Appeal no. 37/1988. Each of the employee in his appeal submitted that they were working with the establishment for long time and the petitioner to terminate their services by playing unfair trade practice created a situation where the respondent/employee was unable to meet the illegal demand of his transfer and join at a different place were forced to abandon the work. Each of the employee submitted that the order of transfer dated February 25, 1985 was illegal and as certain conciliation proceedings were going on they were prevented from filing the appeal within limitation.

( 3 ) THE petitioner/employer submitted before the appellate authority that each was not a case of retrenchment, removal, termination or dismissal but was a case of transfer and as each of the employee did not join at the transferred place and abandoned the work, provisions of Section 31 of Beedi and Cigar workers Act were not applicable. It was also contended that appeal against the order of alleged dismissal was required to be filed within 30 days in accordance with the rules but in case of Kale Khan the appeal was preferred almost after two years ten months and in case of Gul Khai it was filed after three years and six months therefore each appeal was patently barred by limitation and none of the employee was entitled to any relief.

( 4 ) IN support of the allegations and counter allegations parties led their evidence. The learned appellate Authority after condoning the delay in filing the appeals observed that the present petitioner/employer created a situation of impossibility and as the employee was put in a fix and was transferred to a distant place it became impossible for him to join and as the same amounted to unfair labour practice, therefore, each of the respondent was entitled to reinstatement with partial backwages.

( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by orders passed on march 30, 1990 in each of the case, employer has preferred these petitions. The respondents were served and they had filed their return in each of the case but unfortunately none appeared at the time of hearing of the matter therefore, this Court was left with no option but to proceed ex-parte against the respondent No. 2 in each petition.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned appellate authority was unjustified in observing that delay in filing the appeal deserved condonation. According to him neither there was sufficient nor there were proper and legal pleadings in support of the contention and the cause projected by the employee seeking condonation of delay was not a cause provided under the law, therefore, the appeals deserved dismissal on the ground of limitation. Referring to the merits of the matter it was contended by Shri Gupta that from the pleadings raised in the appeals filed by the employee it would clearly appear that present were not cases of retrenchment, removal, dismissal or termination but present were cases of transfers where the employee did not join at the place of transfer or reported on duty. According to him present were not cases of unfa