% (ORAL) Impugned Award of 5th July, 2002 directs reinstatement of respondent with continuity in service. Operation of the impugned order was stayed on 30th January, 2003 subject to deposit of 50% of the awarded amount. The petition was dismissed in default on 17 th December, 2013.
Notice of restoration application was sent to the contesting respondent and as per the order of 28th October, 2015, the contesting respondent was served but none had appeared and the writ petition was restored for regular hearing. Even today, none appears on behalf of contesting respondent.
Impugned Award of 5th July, 2002 directing reinstatement of first respondent with continuity of service with back-wages is assailed in this W.P.(C) 8317/2002 Page 1 petition. On the basis of objection raised by petitioner, trial court had framed an issue as to whether respondent-claimant was a workman. The finding returned on issue No.2 is assailed in this petition on the ground that though the designation of respondent-workman was not material but trial court had gone wrong in deciding this issue against petitioner- management by simply observing that petitioner's witness had not deposed regarding the nature of duties of respondent-workman. To assail impugned award and the finding returned therein, learned counsel for petitioner had drawn attention of this Court to petitioner's application Ex. WW1/M1, which shows that petitioner had applied for the job of Marketing Executive while claiming that he had experience of nearly 10 years in transport trade and was able to handle all commercial activities independently and can also handle indoor, outdoor and other official activities like booking, delivery etc. It was submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that though petitioner was appointed as an Office Executive at salary of `3,000/- p.m. in July, 1995 but even in the claim statement, respondent had claimed that he was working as a Sales Executive at salary of `3,000/- p.m., it has been so claimed in his evidence. It was pointed out that respondent has nowhere claimed in the evidence that he was doing job of a workman and in fact respondent was engaged in the marketing work and so the finding returned on issue No.2 deserves to be set aside.