as Contract Electrician/Shramik in the 1®* petitioner Depot form 9.10.2004. He had worked more than 240 days of a period of 12 calendarmonths. Not allowing the 1®* respondent to duties amounts to retrenchment. The 1 St petitioner in order to escape from the liability of regularization had orally terminated the 1®* respondent from service. He further submits that the Tribunal on an elaborate consideration keeping in viewthediscussionand reasoning and by following the judgments of Hon’ble Courts, has held that the termination of the 1®* respondent as a outsourced Electrician/Shramikfromthe 1®* petitioner corporation is not valid, it is unsustainable, illegal and unenforceable under law. He further submits that as per Section 11 A of the Act, the power of the Labour Court is unfettered to interfere with the impugned oral order or quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. So, the Tribunal held that the 1®‘ respondent is entitledforreinstatementinto service with continuity of service without full back wages and other attendant benefits. In view of the above, it is clear from theAwardthatthere is no misconduct on the part of the workman and as such the Tribunal on an elaborate consideration of the material on record held that the punishment is harsh, which is in order. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.
