erroneous. He has also relied upon the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ganesh Lal Vs. The Judge, Industrial Disputes Tribunal & Ors. , reported in 2007 II CLR 426 and in the case of Madhya Pradesh Administration Vs. Tribhuban reported in (2007) 9 SCC 748 . He has submitted that if this Court comes to the conclusion that there was breach of Section 25 of the I.D. Act, then, instead of reinstatement, the order of compensation may be passed. He has submitted that there is non-application of mind on the part of the Labour Court as so-called termination of the service was in the year 2001, but the Labour Court has observed that it was in the year 2003. He has submitted that the workman has suppressed material facts as during the interregnum period, he was working in another employer, which fact, is not taken into consideration by the Labour Court. He has also submitted that the workman himself voluntarily abandoned the service and not terminated by the employer. He has submitted that considering the service period, the monetary compensation, if any, payable under Section 25(F) of the I.D. Act would be more than Rs.25,000/-. He has submitted that there is no evidence regarding the breach of Section 25(G) and Section 25(H) of the I.D. Act. He has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned award of reinstatement.
