JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner management has challenged the award of the Central Industrial Tribunal dated 11.1.1995 whereby the workman was reinstated in service along with arrears of salary and other benefits as per rules after declaring the termination dated 1.11.1987 as illegal on account of violation of 5 Section 25-G & H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act, 1947). 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the respondent workman was appointed on 3.7.1987 and he continued till 31.10.1987 and further on 1.11.1987 without assigning any reason he was terminated from service. 3. Although the workman has submitted before the Central Industrial Tribunal that the petitioner management has violated the provisions of Section 25-F, G & H of the Act, 1947. The learned Judge of the Central Industrial Tribunal found that the petitioner has worked for 95 days, therefore, he is not entitled for the protection of Section 25-F but the learned Judge of the Central Industrial Tribunal found that the petitioner management has retained the Junior person in service and has further made recruitment. The learned Judge of the Central Industrial Tribunal found that the petitioner has worked for 95 days, therefore, he is not entitled for the protection of Section 25-F but the learned Judge of the Central Industrial Tribunal found that the petitioner management has retained the Junior person in service and has further made recruitment. Thus, violated Section 25-G & H, which are independent of Section 25-F The findings of the learned Judge of the Central Industrial Court on the aforesaid issue reads as under: " Jfed dh izkFkZuk ij twu] 1987 ls vizsy] 1991 rd fu;kstd }kjk nSfud osru ij fu;ksftr Jfedksa dh lwph fu;kstd ls eaxokbZ x;h Fkh o bl izdkj dh lwfp;kWa fu;kstd us izLrqr dh gSaA blls Hkh ;g izdV gksrk gS fd mDr iwjh vof/k esa nSfud osru ij vU; yksxksa dks fu;kstd }kjk fu;ksftr fd;k x;k FkkA Jfed dh tks lk{; izLrqr gqbZ gS mlls o bl lEcU/k esa izLrqr izys[k dks ns[krs gq, rF;kRed :i ls ;g lkfcr ekuk tkrk gS fd Jfed dks lsok eqDr fd;k x;k ml le; mlls dfu"B deZpkjh fu;kstd ds ;gha dk;Zjr Fks o ckn esa Hkh vU; yksxksa dks bl izdkj ls fu;kstu esa j[kk x;k FkkA fu;kstd dh vksj ls tokc esa tks ;g crk;k x;k gS fd Jfed dh fo'ks"k dk;Z ds fy, j[kk x;k Fkk o og dk;Z lekIr gksus ij mls lsok ls gVk;k x;k ;g rF; fdlh Hkh lk{; o izys[k ds vHkko esa ekuus ;ksX; ugha gSA ;fn ;g rF; lkfcr gks fd Jfed dks fof'k"V dk;Z ds fy, ;k fdlh vU; deZpkjh ds ,ot esa ukSdjh ij j[kk x;k Fkk rks fuf'pr vof/k ds i'pkr~ mldh lsokeqfDr dk ekeyk NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk fdUrq bl izdkj ds rF; fu;kstd dh vksj ls lkfcr ugha gq, gSa blfy, ;g /kkj.kk ysus dk vk/kkj gS fd Jfed dks LFkkbZ izd`fr ds dk;Z ds fo:) ukSdjh ij j[kk x;k Fkk o Jfed dk ;g dFku Hkh gS fd og dk;kZy; esa vuqHkkxf/kdkjh ds ikl prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dk dk;Z dj jgk FkkA /kkjk 25&,Q ds izko/kku orZeku ekeys esa ykxw ugha gksrs gSa ;g Hkh Jfed ds vf/koDrk us cgl esa Li"V Lohdkj fd;k gSA " 4. 4- Jfed ds fo}ku izfrf/kfuf/k dk dFku gS fd pwafd fu;kstd }kjk Jfed dh lsok eqfDr ds ekeys esa /kkjk 25&th o ,p ds izko/kku dh ikyuk ugha dh xbZ gS blfy, lsok eqfDr dk vkns'k ekurs gq, Jfed dks iqu% lsok esa ysus dk vkns'k fn;k tkosA bl lEcU/k esa mUgksaus fuEu fof/k n`"VkUr izLrqr fd;s gSa %& 1& vkj0,y0vkj0 1991 ( 2 ) ist 159 vksfj;sUVy cSad vkWQ dkWelZ cuke ihBklhu vf/kdkjh vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.kA 2& vkj0,y0vkj0 1991 ( 2 ) ist 691 ,l-ih- 'kekZ cuke jktLFkku VSDlV cqd cksMZ] t;iqjA 3& vkj0,y0vkj0 1989 ( 1 ) ist 636] jkepUnz ;kno cuke vkj0,l0vkj0Vh0lh0A 4& vkj0,y0vkj0 1991 ( 1 ) 577] tujy eSustj uknZu jsyos cuke vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.kA 5& mDr lanfHkZr lHkh fof/k n`"VkUrksa esa izfrikfnr fl)kUrksa dk v/;;u djus ls ;g fLFkfr izdV gksrh gS fd /kkjk 25&th o ,p ds izko/kku /kkjk 25&,Q ds izko/kku ds v/khu ugha gS o ftu ekeyksa esa /kkjk 25&,Q ds izko/kku ykxw ugha gksrs gSa ogkWa Hkh fu;kstd dks /kkjk 25&,p o th ds izko/kku dh ikyuk djuk vko';d gS o ;fn bu vkKkid izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk ugh dh tkrh gS rks Jfed dh lsok eqfDr ds vkns'k dks oS/k ugha ekuk tk ldrkA bl izdj.k esa Jfed us lsok eqfDr ds rqjUr i'pkr~ viuk fookn le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqr fd;k Fkk o Jfed ds vU; txg fu;kstu ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ Hkh vfHkdFku ;k lk{; fu;kstd dh vksj ls izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gS blfy, fcuk fdlh mfpr izfrj{kk ds Jfed dks lsokeqfDr dh vof/k dk fiNyk cdk;k osru izkIr djus ds ykHk ls lkekU;r% oafpr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA 6& funsZf'kr fookn esa vf/kfu.kZ; bl izdkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd funs'kd nwjn'kZu dsUnz] t;iqj }kjk Jfed Hkksykjke dks fnukad 1-11-87 ls lsokeqDr djus dh dk;Zokgh voS/k gS ifj.kkeLo:i Jfed lsok dh fujUrjrk cuk;s j[krs gq, iqu% lsok esa vkus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk lsokeqfDr dh frfFk ls iqu% lsok esa vkus dh frfFk rd leLr fiNyh osru o vU; ykHk fu;ekuqlkj izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA " 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner management submitted before this Court that the award was made by ex-parte order by postponing the date, therefore, they could not participate in the proceedings. Against the ex-parte award an application was also moved before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner management submitted before this Court that the award was made by ex-parte order by postponing the date, therefore, they could not participate in the proceedings. Against the ex-parte award an application was also moved before the Tribunal. The submission of the counsel for the respondent is that as the petitioner did not attend Court on 9.1.1995 how he would have come to know about the date of 11.1.1995 when the ex-parte order was passed. 5. In my view explanation given by the counsel for the petitioner management has no substance and the learned Central Industrial Tribunal rightly passed the ex-parte award. No interference is called for under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The judgment of the learned Judge Central Industrial Tribunal is based on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported in (1996) 5 SCC 419 Central Bank of India v. Satyam & Ors . wherein it has been categorically held that the Section 25-G & H are independent of Section 25-F and earlier also the same view has been taken by this Hon'ble Court in the judgment which were referred in para 4 of the award. 7. Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the compensation in lieu of the reinstatement be awarded in view of the fact that the services of the petitioner were terminated way back on 11.11.1987. Here in the instant case, the Junior Persons are continuing the recruitment has also been made. In these circumstances, in my view. the compensation cannot be an appropriate way of granting the relief to the workman more particularly as per Industrial Disputes Act, the reinstatement is the rule and compensation is the exception. 8. I find no infirmity in the award passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal. The same is legal and justified. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.Writ Petition dismissed. *******