JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - This writ application by the workman-petitioner is directed against a decision dated 1.5.1980 of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, in Industrial Disputes Case No. 137 of 1979 holding the termination of service of the petitioner by opposite party No. 2 employer, as legal and justified, 2. The petitioner was appointed with effect from 15.6.1965 as a Lower Division Clerk by opposite party No. 2 in the scale of pay Rs. 80-115/- per month. By order dated 30.1.1978 (Annexure-2) his service was terminated as no longer necessary from the date of issue of the order. The order was to the following effect: "Services of Sri Digambar Swain, M. Asst. of this R.C.M.S. being no longer necessary to this institution his services are dispensed with effect from the date of issue of this order, as he is a temporary employee. One month's salary including all allowances from date of termination as per this order be taken by him from the office of the undersigned after handing over charges. Sd/- President 30.1.78 The petitioner had by then served opposite party No. 2 for about 12 years and 8 months. Dispute having been raised by him, the State Government in exercise of powers conferred u/s 12(5) read with Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following question for adjudication by the Labour Court: "Whether the termination of services of Sri Digambar Swain workman of M/s. The Sakhigopal Regional Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd, Puri with effect from 30.1.1978 is legal and/or justified ? If not to what relief Shri Swain is entitled?" 3. The stand of the management before the Labour Court was that the petitioner having been appointed to the post temporarily, his service which was no longer required, could be terminated at any time without notice. But as a gesture of good-will he was offered one month's salary and other allowances. On the pleadings, the Labour Court framed the following issues: "(i) Whether the reference is maintainable? (ii) Whether the termination of service of the workman is legal and justified ? i) To what relief the workman is entitled?" 4. The Labour Court found that the service of the petitioner was not terminated on ground of any misconduct. No domestic enquiry was conducted, nor was he given compensation for his past services as provided under the Act. (ii) Whether the termination of service of the workman is legal and justified ? i) To what relief the workman is entitled?" 4. The Labour Court found that the service of the petitioner was not terminated on ground of any misconduct. No domestic enquiry was conducted, nor was he given compensation for his past services as provided under the Act. It, however, permitted the management, though there was no pleading or issue to that effect, to adduce evidence in regard to certain misconduct of the petitioner during 1977, namely, that the petitioner had allowed Sri. Nandanandan Das to make an interpolation in his application for leave. The management adduced evidence to the effect that a disciplinary proceeding against Shri Nandanandan Das was initiated for having absented himself on 17th and 18th July, 1977 without leave. During enquiry Sri Nandanandan Das urged that he had sought permission to avail leave on 17th and 18th July, 1977 and that fact was stated in his application. Though the application disclosed the said fact it was contended by the management that the statement was a subsequent interpolation. Despite the denial of the petitioner, the Labour Court held that the application had been interpolated by the petitioner. It, therefore, held the petitioner guilty of misconduct and upheld the termination as legal and justified. 5. Mr. B.B. Ratho, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that a case of termination of service for misconduct was outside the scope of the reference. That was not present even to the minds of the parties until the management chose to adduce evidence on that score. The management did not justify the order of termination on the ground of alleged misconduct. The petitioner was, therefore, taken by surprise and it was outside the jurisdiction or the Labour Court to have entertained the plea and permitted the management to adduce evidence. Mr. R.C. Ram, the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, has sought to justify the decision of the Labour Court on the ground that there was misconduct on the part of the petitioner and that having been sustained by the Labour Court on evidence, it was not open to the petitioner-workman to challenge the decision. Even though the order of termination was a termination simpliciter, it was open to the Labour Court to be satisfied that the termination was justified on the ground of misconduct. 6. Even though the order of termination was a termination simpliciter, it was open to the Labour Court to be satisfied that the termination was justified on the ground of misconduct. 6. I have extracted the order of termination. It is not founded on misconduct. Nor did the management justify the order of termination on the ground of misconduct in its pleading, vide Annexure-4. Its simple case was that the services of the petitioner were terminated without any stigma as he was a temporary employee and his services were no longer required. Question of alleged misconduct of the petitioner during 1977 and justification of the termination on the basis thereof were, therefore, outside the scope of the reference. When the management in its pleadings did not justify the termination on ground of misconduct, the Labour Court acted in excess of jurisdiction by entering into an enquiry into misconduct as alleged by the management. When the termination on the ground of misconduct was foreign to the pleadings, evidence on a plea of misconduct for which there was no foundation should not have been allowed to be let in. The finding, therefore, on that score is without jurisdiction. 7. It was not disputed that the petitioner was not paid retrenchment compensation as required by Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Termination of his service, therefore, was illegal and unjustified. He is, therefore, entitled to be reinstated. The next question is the quantum of back wages that he should be given. The counsels were heard on this question at length and were also granted time to take instruction. Having regard to the time that has elapsed since the termination of the service of the petitioner, 1 am of the view that a direction for payment of back wages from 1st January, 1983 would meet the ends of justice. I, therefore, quash the decision of the Labour Court dated 1.5.1980 (Annexurc 5) and direct reinstatement of the petitioner with payment of back wages from 1st January, 1983. The writ application is allowed in part. There would be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed