£ “3 Eat iéaéixmrm m3. 'i!i;§"éi (3f i§§$ Kejuram 3/0 Gamesh Yadav: Para Ward N04: Domgargarh‘, Rajnandgaon MP (2), The First Apyaenafa Authorify having came to 'Ehe concfuaian iaat the arder of c’ism%o$a!!termioafioo passed by the fu‘sf respomemt waa i‘?aoaf and in vfo§amm of naturai justice had a§§owad We aooea no Fyao' direct-ad the first respondent to reinstaia the petitioner ioto service omy for the purpoae of roliing of Beedéos. ; ( u {3! :iv—wcw a H Q6“: W ir‘aagaomwi’g 4i. a . . Empmymem; Aci, i966; Cum Assisianf Labour Corrm ssionert §aipur Labour DMSIon, 3!, sounw’ far the petitimer. caunsaw * regacn amt NM The petitigner was empbyed by the r€$p0ndent No.1 fer ihe 3 of roHmQ arm roasting a? Beedies. $ince the petiiimer had we: peh‘ormed ‘ob cf roasting a? Beedies, the respmdtsnt 349.1 by his " erder dated 358$? baJ lxeiitéone: Aggrieved .i 319 said arder: e had appmaahaci fhe First Appefiaie ' Avihoriiy aa provifjad under Rwa 3i (2) (a) of Beedj and Cigar Workers {Condiiioma of Empmyment) Ac 19%; (far shoa MW 52 (3) Aggrieved by the ordem and directions issued by the First Appeiiate Auiherity; the petitioner had med a review petition inter aiia requesting the authcrity to review his order and to direct the first reeaaondent to reinstate the petitioner into service for performing functions of roiiing and roasting of Beediest That review petition was rejected by the first respondent VJ passed by the authority under Section 31 (2)(a) is final. (4) Though the respondents are served with the notice, respondent No.1 is not represented by any learned counsel before this Court. (5) The order of termination passed by the first respondent would clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was performing the function of rolling and roasting of Beedies. Since he had not performed the function of roasting of Beedies. the first respondent/employer without holding‘ any inquiry whatsoever had terminated his services. That order had been questioned by the petitioner before the First Appeliate Authority. The First Appellate Authority had taken exception to the orders passed by the first respondent and therefore; had directed the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service and white doing so; the First Appellate Authority was expected to direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner into sen/toe for discharging the function which he was discharging earlier. tn the present ”Vt. . case, the First Appeliate Authority white directing the first respondent had onty directed him to allow the petitioner to discharge the function of rolling of Beedies and not of roasting s of Beedies. This, in m o inion t is incorrect and the modified. Accordingly, the foliowing: . 1 iliegal. Therefore. the orders passed by the second respondent requires to l Q {j} Petitian is allowed (ii) The Ruie is made absoiute. The order passed by the First AppeHate Authcrity is modified and a direction is resued to the fire: respondent i0 reinstate éhe petitioner into eervioe fer the purpose of roiiing and roasring or" beedies within a month‘s time ‘ ofiihie Court’s order. .e date of receipt of a copy (6) For oiher monetary benefite etc, the petitioner shaii now approach the first respondent by ming appiication/representatioh. Ordered accordingiy. Sdl- . A ChiefJu$il?€_ so l: ’ an appropriate