This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned VIth Labour Court , given on 24th March, 1982, directing the re-instatement in service of the respondent employee with back benefits on the ground that the termination of his services was wrong in that he was not the last person employed in the appellant organization. It may be pointed out that the case of the respondent was heard alongwith the cases of Abdul Jabbar and 10 other conductors and while their grievance petitions were dismissed, the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed, as already indicated.
2. The ground which weighed with the learned Labour Court in allowing the grievance petition of the respondent was that respondent Lal Muhammad who was appointed in August, 1966 was not the last person employed and that when his services were terminated, persons appointed later were retained- -in 'service. There is unfortunately, no evidence on the record in support of the view taken by the learned Labour Court . An examination of the record of the learned Labour Court indicates that on 30th. September, 1980 the respondent had filed his affidavit in this mater. The Diary, of the case indicates that the matter was thereafter adjourned to 19th October, 1980 for the cross-examination of the respondent. However, there is no Diary for 19th October, 1980 thereby suggesting that no hearing took place on the said date. Furthermore, admittedly no opportunity for cross-examination of the respondent was given to the appellants. As such, the affidavit of the respondent cannot be taken into consideration.
3. In view of the above facts, both the learned counsel prayed that the case be remanded to the learned Labour Court for the purposes of recording evidence on the issue whether any person junior to the respon--dent, Lai Muhammad was retained, in service when the services of the respondent were terminated. As the learned Labour Court appears to have relied upon the evidence of Lai Muhammad without his being subjected to cross-examination or even an opportunity being given to the appellant to cross-examine him, I would -set aside the decision of the "r learned Labour Court- and would remand the case to it for giving a fresh finding- in the matter after affording an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence on the issue whether any person junior to the respondent herein was retained in service, when the services of the respondent were terminated.