JUDGMENT

C.K. THAKKER, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal is filed by the Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh and another (appellants herein) against the judgment and the decree passed by the Court of Senior Sub Judge with Enhanced Appellate Powers, Chandigarh on January 30, 1980 in Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1979 and confirmed by the High Court on April 26, 2006 in Second Appeal No. 2473 of 1980 as also an order, dated September 01, 2006 rejecting an application to recall the said order.

3. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that Raghu Raj-respondent herein, was appointed by the Executive Engineer, Horticulture Division, Chandigarh as `beldar on purely temporary basis. Initial appointment was made in 1969 and after sometime, he was discontinued. Again, fresh appointment was given in 1972. It was expressly stated when the respondent was appointed that his services were liable to be terminated at any time without notice or reason. According to the appellant, the services of the respondent were not found to be satisfactory and accordingly his services were terminated on September 18, 1976.

4. The respondent raised an industrial dispute. The parties, however, settled the matter on February 15, 1977 pursuant to which the respondent was reinstated in service with effect from February 19, 1977. The respondent- workman was placed on probation for a period of six months. According to the appellants, again the services of the respondent were found to be unsatisfactory. His services were, therefore, terminated by an order dated August 12, 1977.

5. This time, the respondent-workman, instead of moving Industrial Forum, approached a Civil Court by instituting a suit in the Court of Sub Judge, Chandigarh. It was registered as Case No. 153 of 1977. The learned Judge, by a judgment and decree, dated May 25, 1979, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The Court held that the impugned order of termination of services of the plaintiff was "perfectly valid and legal" and that the order was passed in accordance with terms and conditions of the appointment order.

6. Being aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial Court, the respondent-workman preferred Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1979. The Court of Sub-Judge with Enhanced Appellate Powers(appellate Court) allowed the appeal, set aside the decree passed by the trial Court and held that what was stated in the order of termination was that the work as well as conduct of the respondent was unsatisfactory. Imputation of unsatisfactory conduct would amount to `stigma. Since no notice was issued to the employee, nor any explanation was sought from him, nor an opportunity of being heard was afforded, the order was liable to be set aside being violative of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the order was declared null and void and inoperative and a decree was passed holding that the respondent-plaintiff was deemed to be in service and was entitled to all benefits of salary, increments and other allowances. The amount comes to few lakhs of rupees.

7. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the decree of the lower appellate Court, the appellants herein preferred a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appeal was registered as Regular Second Appeal No. 2473 of 1980 and was admitted on November 11, 1980. By a judgment and order dated April 26, 2006, the appeal was dismissed on merits.

8. The judgment itself recites; "None for the appellants".

9. On behalf of the respondent, however, an advocate appeared. The appeal was dismissed with costs and the judgment and the decree passed by the learned Senior Sub-Judge (appellate court) was confirmed.

10. The appellants, on September 13, 2006, filed an application for recall of the order, dated April 26, 2006 dismissing the appeal with a prayer to rehear the matter. But the said application was also dismissed by the High Court on October 1, 2006. Both the orders are challenged in the present appeal.

11. On January 19, 200