A.K. Shrivastava, J. -- 1. The appellant/workman by taking aid of section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyalay (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has assailed the order dated 15th January, 2007 passed by the learned writ Court in WP No. 3540 of 2006 (S) as well as the order dated 25th November, 2009 passed in review application (MCC No. 133 of 2007) by which the award passed by the learned Labour Court dated 5th December, 2005 directing reinstatement of the appellant/workman with 50% back wages has been quashed.

2. No exhaustive statement of the facts of the case are required to be narrated for the disposal of this appeal. Suffice it to say that an industrial dispute was raised by the workman/appellant which was referred by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court for its adjudication. The point in dispute before the learned Labour Court was whether the action of the employer/ respondents in terminating the services of the workman/appellant, was in consonance with the law or not.

3. We have heard Shri D.P. Singh Advocate for the appellant and Shri P.N. Gupta, Government Advocate for the respondent-State and we are of the considered opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed.

4. On going through the award passed by the learned Labour Court as well as the statement of claim submitted by the parties, this Court finds that as per the case of the workman, he was serving as daily wager in the employment of respondents. He was appointed in the month of December, 1985 as Driver on daily wages basis and after having served for near about 09 years, his services were terminated on 31st January, 1996. This order of termination was assailed by the workman/appellant by filing an application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal by an order dated 12th November, 1998 passed in OA No.131 of1991 quashed the termination order dated 31st January, 1996. But, the workman/appellant was again terminated by the respondents vide order dated 18th September, 2001 and the said order was served on him by affixture on 8th October 2001. According to the workman, the action of the employer terminating his service de hors to the provisions of section 25 F and 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and because mandatory requirements were not complied with prior to passing of the termination order, the termination order would amount to illegal retrenchment and hence the workman be reinstated with full back wages.

5. Before the learned labour Court, the workman examined himself and on behalf of the employer, Shri GK. Tiwari, Assistant Conservator of Forest was examined. On behalf of the workman, an application was filed before the learned Labour Court on 5th August, 2003 praying to summon his service record. On this application no order was passed by the learned Labour Court as a result of which another application was submitted on 20th January, 2004 by the workman praying the same relief. The application was allowed by the learned labour Court on 18th March 2004 and it was directed to the respondents/employer to furnish the service record of the workman/appellant. No such record was produced by the employer/respondents before the learned Labour Court.

6. The learned Labour Court vide award dated 5th December, 2005 while deciding the issue No.1 came to hold that the action of the respondents/employer terminating the services of the workman/appellant runs contrary to the provisions of sections 25 F and 25 G of the Act and hence, directed the employer to reinstate the workman with 50% back wages.

7. The respondents/employer have assailed the award passed by the learned Labour Court by filing writ petition before this Court and the same was allowed by the impugned order by the learned writ Court. It is pertinent to mention here that no appeal was preferred by the workman disentitling him 50% of the ba