!# 1. In t without de respondent individual Dispute Ac dated 10.0 services of back wage 2. Lear never serv respondent service wi otherwise, industry or days befor is liable to +,-./0--1 !"#$ !# ! "# "# %%%%% %#&'%"'#() * In the present petition, the grieva out deciding the moot issue whether ondent-workman as a tractor driver vidual, will give right to claim the ute Act, 1947 (for short “1947 Act”), d 10.01.1995 (Annexure P-2) has s of the respondent-workman with wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner s r served at the correct address and by ondent-workman has been reinstated with full back wages, which is a rwise, no finding has been recorded stry or not or whether the respondent before termination of his services or ble to be set aside. - 1 – +,-./0--1 "/2$#!#,3,++,+4 &' #%#&'%"'# $ grievance of the petitioner is that ether personal services rendered by driver, being availed by a private the benefits under the Industrial Act”), the impugned ex parte award ) has been passed reinstating the n with continuity of service and full ioner submits that the petitioner was and by the said ex parte award, the stated in service with continuity of ch is arbitrary and illegal and even corded whether the petitioner is an ndent-workman has worked for 240 or not hence, the ex parte award – that d by ivate strial ward the full was , the ty of even is an 240 ward VINOD KUMAR 2025.02.10 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3. Lear ascertainin therefore, award may 4. I hav the record 5. Even workman h the moot corollary t of Section show that n the statem also witho has been v 6. Kee petition is (Annexure Labour Co Court for s 7. The 11.03.2025 5 6#27 ( ( +,-./0--1 Learned counsel for the responden rtaining service upon the petitioner, th efore, the petitioner’s claim that he wa rd may kindly be rejected. I have heard learned counsel for the ecord with their able assistance. Even if the petitioner was procee kman has to prove his claim. A findin moot point that whether the petition llary to this, whether the respondent- ection 1947 Act or not. A bare perusa that no such finding has been recorde statement of the respondent-workman without even deciding as to whether been violated or not. Keeping in view the above facts a ion is hereby allowed and the impug nexure P-2) and dated 03.12.1996 (A our Court are set aside and the case is rt for such adjudication, noticed herein The parties are directed to appear 3.2025. 5,3(+,+4 ( " ) ( ' - 2 – ondent-workman submits that after ner, the award has been passed and, he was not heard before passing the or the parties and have gone through proceeded ex parte, then also the finding had to be recorded to anser etitioner is an industry or not and -workman can claim the benefits perusal of the award would go on to ecorded in this regard and merely on rkman, the award has been passed hether Section 25F of the 1947 Act facts and circumstances, the present impugned orders dated 10.01.1995 996 (Annexure P-7) passed by the case is remanded back to the Labour hereinbefore. appear before the Labour Court on ) !#%#&'%"'#* 2& ) ) – after and, g the ough the anser and efits on to ly on ssed Act esent 1995 the bour rt on * VINOD KUMAR 2025.02.10 09:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document