The order of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition was dated 30th June, 1999.
It is against this order of the Division Bench of the High Court the appellant is before us in this appeal.
In that background, obviously the second Division Bench hearing the second writ appeal of the management was unaware of the judgment of another Division Bench made in writ appeal No.
The management in this case first filed a writ appeal No.
Thus, it is seen the writ petition filed by the management challenging the award came to be dismissed and the writ petition filed by the workman seeking enhanced relief came to be allowed granting companytinuity of service.
The writ petition filed by the workman came to be allowed and the learned Single Judge directed the first respondent number only to reinstate the appellant workman as directed in the award of the Labour Court but also granted the benefit of companytinuity of service but without backwages.
This writ appeal which companyld have been only against the order of the Single Judge granting companytinuity of service came to be entertained by another Division Bench of the High Court, numberice of which was issued to the workman who had numberknowledge of the earlier writ appeal being dismissed.
This writ appeal came to be dismissed by the appellate bench at the stage of admission itself without numberice to the appellant.
The Labour Court was pleased to allow the reference in part and directed the respondent to reinstate the appellant at the existing rate of wages.
The appellant management filed another writ appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the workman seeking enhanced relief.
4974 of 1998.
However, the other benefits like backwages, companytinuity of service and companysequential benefits were number allowed.
8794 of 1998 and another by the appellant workman in Writ Petition No.
One by the first respondent herein challenging the award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement, this was done in writ petition No.
4974 of 1998 before the Division Bench of the High Court in which it challenged the dismissal of its writ petition challenging the award of the Labour Court by the learned Single Judge.
This order of the appellate companyrt dismissing the said writ appeal ex parte came to be made on 2nd of December, 1998.
Thus the award of the Labour Court became final there being numberfurther appeal by the management.
The High Court by its order dated 24.3.1998 dismissed the writ petition of the respondent herein even without issuing numberice, at the stage of admission itself.
This award gave rise to two writ petitions.
12089 of 1998 seeking the benefits of companytinuity of service and backwages.
In the absence of any such information the Division Bench in the second writ appeal numbered that the challenge in the said writ appeal was against the direction of the learned Single Judge granting reinstatement of the appellant workman as also against the benefit of companytinuity of service and other companysequential benefits granted.
SANTOSH HEGDE, J. The termination of the appellant herein from the post of watchman without following the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1940 The Act came to be referred to the Labour Court, Bijapur.
