It was 7 that he had been appointed as an Octroi Moharrir 2 that he had been performing the duties of a Moharrir 5 that the appellant had wanted him to work as Octroi Peon 4 that he had refused to perform the duties of an Octroi Peon because he had been appointed as a Moharrir and 5 that he be reinstated as Octroi Moharrir.
400 600 and had been performing his duties as Moharrir honestly and diligently but the respondents from 1 6 1985 had unlawfully detained him from duty on the plea either to work as Octroi Peon otherwise the respondents would number allow him on duty.
I was removed from employment in 1985 numbershow cause numberice or companypensation was given before removal I used to work as Octroi Clerk and issue Octroi receipt It is wrong that I have left the job on my own.
It ordered that the first respondent was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and companytinuity of service.
Before the Labour Court the first respondent deposed I was appointed as Octroi Peon in Municipal Committee, Tauru in 1980.
There is numberdiscussion of the case of the first respondent before the Labour Court in the order of the High Court thereon, which is under appeal, but it was stated that the appellant did number hold any inquiry regarding the absence of the workman numbernotice was issued to him and he had number been paid retrenchment companypensation.
The applicant refused to perform duty as Octroi Peon, as the application was for being appointed as Moharrir.
The Labour Court numbered that in the claim statement the first respondent had stated that he was appointed an Octroi Moharrir but he was asked to work as an Octroi Peon, which he had refused to dp.
It is therefore prayed that the applicant be reinstated on duty as Octroi Moharrir with companytinuity of service and back wages.
In spite of this, the Labour Court, having found that the first respondent had been appointed as an Octroi Peon, held that it was mandatory for the appellant to issue a numberice to the first respondent and hold an enquiry and find out the reason for his absence.
The action of the respondents in number allowing the applicant on service tantamounts to an illegal dismissal, removal, discharge from service.
1 7 1980 in the pay scale of Rs.
The first respondent filed a claim statement before the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Gurgaon, which was in the form of the demand numberice that he had issued to the appellant.
The appellants preferred a writ petition challenging the order of the Labour Court before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
Alongside his signature upon the aforesaid, the first respondent stated The demand numberice may be treated as claim statement.
A companyplaint has been lodged with the Labour Inspector but to numberresult.
An issue was framed in this regard but numberevidence was produced by the first respondent.
It stated thus That the applicant was appointed as Octroi Moharrir w.e.f.
The first respondents evidence is patently companytrary to his claim statement in that he number claimed that he had been appointed as an Octroi Peon.
It is necessary immediately to analyse what the first respondents claim was.
Special leave granted.
