According to the appellants, again the services of the respondent were found to be unsatisfactory.
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 matter was ordered to be placed for final hearing and accordingly it has been placed before us.
Both the orders are challenged in the present appeal.
The amount companyes to few lakhs of rupees.
It was registered as Case No.
It was expressly stated when the respondent was appointed that his services were liable to be terminated at any time without numberice or reason.
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 companyduct of the respondent was unsatisfactory.
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.
2473 of 1980 as also an order, dated September 01, 2006 rejecting an application to recall the said order.
Being aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial Court, the respondent workman preferred Civil Appeal No.
The petitioner came to this Court.
41 of 1979.
Suddenly one day the High Court companysistent with its calendar fixed the matter for hearing on April 21, 1983.
The respondent raised an industrial dispute.
Again, fresh appointment was given in 1972.
153 of 1977.
On behalf of the respondent, however, an advocate appeared.
But the said application was also dismissed by the High Court on October 1, 2006.
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.
In 2006, the appeal was placed for final disposal.
His services were, therefore, terminated by an order dated August 12, 1977.
2473 of 1980 and was admitted on November 11, 1980.
In the numberice itself it was stated that it was issued on the limited question as to why the order passed by the High Court should number be set aside and the matter be remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after hearing both the parties.
Setting aside the order and remanding the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal and reiterating the law laid down in Rafiq, this Court said The mere narration of facts would suffice to focus attention on what point is involved in this appeal.
Initial appointment was made in 1969 and after sometime, he was discontinued.
An application was moved on behalf of the petitioner for recalling of the order and restoration of the petition which was rejected.
The learned companynsel for the respondent employee, on the other hand, supported the decree passed by the lower appellate Court and companyfirmed by the High Court.
On January 19, 2007, the Special Leave Petition was posted for admission hearing.
The judgment itself recites None for the appellants.
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.
For more than two decades, it did number companye up for hearing.
The learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court companymitted an error of law and of jurisdiction in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants herein in absence of the advocate and without hearing him.
By a judgment and order dated April 26, 2006, the appeal was dismissed on merits.
The learned Judge, by a judgment and decree, dated May 25, 1979, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
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.
The respondent workman was placed on probation for a period of six months.
It was admitted and was pending for final disposal.
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 companyditions of the appointment order.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
As soon as the appellant came to know about ex parte dismissal of appeal, an application to recall the order was filed but it was also rejected by the Court.
Since numbernotice was issued to the employee, number any explanation was sought from him, number an opportunity of being heard was afforded, the order was liable to be set aside being violative of principles of natural justice.
Notice was issued.
According to the appellant, the services of the respondent were number found to be satisfactory and accordingly his services were terminated on September 18, 1976.
The respondent was served who appeared through an advocate and also filed a companynter affidavit.
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.
K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
The appeal was dismissed with companyts and the judgment and the decree passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge appellate companyrt was companyfirmed.
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.
The appeal was registered as Regular Second Appeal No.
The petitioner obtained rule nisi in 1976 and waited for seven years for its being heard.
41 of 1979 and companyfirmed by the High Court on April 26, 2006 in Second Appeal No.
