"Having considered tl-re rival submissionsrnadcb1' the learned counsel on eitherside, this Court is ofthe considered view thatthe l'ribunal has tightlypassed the Award in favour ofthc 2nd respondent-rvorkman. Since tl-rc 2nd respondent-workmanhas specificalll' pleadedthat his juniors were continued in serwice and thcitserwiceswere also regularized, in ordetto do completejustice, the Tdbunal had directedthe petitioner to reinstate the 2nd respondent-workmaninto serviceby settlng aside thc oral termination dated 5.5.1999.The 'I'ribunalhas no powerto direct the petitionerto regularize the serviccs of the 2nd respondent-workmanand only to that lirnited extent, the Tribunal erred in givingsuch a direction.In respect of othct aspects, such assctungaside the otdcr: of tertlirlltrorland directing reiflstatementof the wotkmaninto sctwice at:e all well within its power.Accordinglv, thc Writ Pctitionis disposed of.'fhe.,\wardpasscd b,v the'I'ribunal to the extent of direcdng thepetitionerto regularize the scwiccs of tl-rc 2nd tespondent-worl<manis set aside and rest of the '\rvard dated 30.06.2003passedby the Tribunalin I D No 79 of 2001 is upheld.No costs."
