JUDGMENT S. K. Diiaon, J. - The validity of an award dated 12th August, 1989 passed by the Labour Court, Ghaziabad, is being questioned in the present writ petition. 2. On 01 before 27th February, 1980 the respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the workman) was an employee of M/s. Hind Cycles Limited. On the said date he was dismissed from service. On 15th October, 1980 the Hind Cycles Limited and Sen-Releigh Limited (Nationalisation) Ordinance, 1980 was promulgated. This ordinance was replaced by the Hind Cycles Limited and Sen-Releigh Limited (Nationalisation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Act was enforced with effect from 27th December, 1980. In the meanwhile, on 31st October, 1980 the State Government in the purported exercise of power under Section 4-K of the U. P Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the U. P. Act) referred for adjudication a dispute between M/s. Hind Cycles Limited and the workmen. This reference was registered as Adjudication Case No. 200 of 1980 In substance, the dispute referred was as to whether the employer was justified in removing the workman from service with effect from 27th February, 1980 ? If not, to what relief was the workman entitled ? 3. In the original reference the dispute was confined to M/s. Hind Cycles Limited and the workman. However, on 2nd May, 1981 for M/s. Hind Cycles Limited, M/s. National Bicycle Corporation of India Limited was substituted as the employer. 4. In spite of notice the National Bicycle Corporation, the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) did not put in appearance and on ex parte award was passed. The Labour Court held that the dismissal of the workman from service was illegal and, therefore, he was entitled to be paid full back wages and also to reinstatement in service, 5. In the forefront the argument advanced on behalf of the Corporation is that in view of the provisions of the Act neither any award could be given against the Corporation nor the same can be executed as against it. For appreciating this submission a few provisions of the Act require examination. In sub-section (a) of Section 2 "appointed day" means 15th October, 1980. For appreciating this submission a few provisions of the Act require examination. In sub-section (a) of Section 2 "appointed day" means 15th October, 1980. Section 3 provides that on the appointed day the undertakings of the Hind Cycles Limited and Sen-Releigh Limited and right, title and interest of each of the two companies in relation to such undertakings shall stand transferred to and shall vest in the Central Government. Section 6 empowers the Central Government to direct the vesting of the two undertakings into two Government companies. This has to be done by a notification probably by virtue of a notification under Section 6 of the Corporation came into existence. Sub-section (1) of Section 5 fastened certain prior liabilities upon the owners of the two companies. It says that except the liabilities specified in sub-section (2), every liability of any period to the appointed day shall be the liability of the concerned company and not of the Central Government or the concerned Government company. Sub-section (2) is confined to the liabilities in respect of materials supplied to either of the two companies after the management of the undertakings had been taken over by the Cental Government. Sub-section (3) has three parts. Clause (a) says that no liability, other than the liability specified in sub-section (2), of either of the two companies in relation to its undertakings in respect of any period prior to the appointed day, shall be enforceable against the Central Government or against the Government companies, as the case may be. Clause (b) lays down that no award, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or any other authority in relation to the undertakings of either of the two companies passed on or after the appointed day, in respect of any matter, claim or dispute, not being matter, claim or dispute in relation to any matter referred to in sub-section (2), which arose before that day, shall be enforceable against the Central Government or against the Government company. as the case may be. Clause (c) talks of the liability incurred for contravening any provision of law We are not concerned with this part. 6. Sub-section (1) of Section 13 is important for the purposes of this petition and it will be profitable to extract the same : "13. Continuance of employees. as the case may be. Clause (c) talks of the liability incurred for contravening any provision of law We are not concerned with this part. 6. Sub-section (1) of Section 13 is important for the purposes of this petition and it will be profitable to extract the same : "13. Continuance of employees. - ( ) Every person who has been immediately before the appointed day, employed in any undertaking of either of the two companies shall become - (a) on and from the appointed day, an employee of the Central Government, and (b) where the undertaking of the two companies are directed, under sub-section (1) of Section 6, to vest in Government companies, an employee of the concerned Government company on and from the date of such vesting or transfer, and shall hold office or service under the Central Government or the concerned Government company, as the case may be, with the same rights and privileges as to pension, gratuity and other matters as would have been admissible to him if there had been no such vesting and shall continue to do so unless and until his employment under the Central Government or the concerned Government company, as the case may be, is duly terminated or until his remuneration and other conditions of service are duly altered by the Central Government or the concerned Government company, as the case may be. 7. If Section 5 is read in isolation of Section 13, the contention of the Corporation will have force and there will be no difficulty in taking the view that Corporation can be fastened with the liability incurred by M/s. Hind Cycles Limited before the appointed day, nor can the impugned award be enforced against it (the Corporation). However, the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 13 seems to turn the table. The effect of the impugned award is that in the eye of law no order dismissing the workman from service with effect from 27th February, 1980, came into existence. It is to be remembered that the finding recorded by the Labour Court is that the order of dismissal was passed without holding any domestic enquiry and, therefore, there can be no getting away from the fact that the same was passed without complying with the principles of natural justice. It is to be remembered that the finding recorded by the Labour Court is that the order of dismissal was passed without holding any domestic enquiry and, therefore, there can be no getting away from the fact that the same was passed without complying with the principles of natural justice. The result is that the relationship of employer and employee between M/s. Hind Cycles Limited and the workman was not severed at all and the workman is a person who has been immediately employed in the undertaking of M/s. Hind Cycles Limited before the appointed day so as to attract the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 13. It follows that on or after the appointed day the workman became the employee of the Central Government and thereafter of the Government Company (the Corporation). It also follows that on the force of the provisions as contained in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13, the workman was entitled to be paid his full wages etc. with effect from the appointed day and the liability to make such a payment was fastened upon the Central Government and thereafter upon the Government company. My view is fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Workmen v. Bharat Cooking Coal Limited and others, AIR 1985 SC 979. The definition of a "workman" in the U.P. Act and the Central Act is similar. 8. The second contention raised is that the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court had not been appointed in accordance with law and, therefore, the award given by him is a nullity. This controversy stands concluded by a decision of this Court in M/s. Poysha Industrial Company Ltd., Ghaziabad v. State of U. P. and others, (1985) 2 LIC 1683. 9. The petition succeeds in part. Corporation shall be liable to pay the back wages to the workman with effect from 16th October, 1980, the appointed day, till he is reinstated. The Corporation shall also reinstate the workman. The wages of the workman shall be computed on the basis that there was at no stage any break in his service. The workman shall be entitled to institute appropriate proceedings in an appropriate forum for realising the back wages with effect from 27th February, 1980 to 14th October, 1980. 10. There shall be no order as to costs.