JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. Petitioners have prayed for quashing the award dated 18.9.1996 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 7 of 1994, whereby and whereunder it was held that the termination of services of respondent No. 2 being void ab initio, he will be deemed to be in service and entitled to full back wages. 3. The father of respondent No. 2 retired on 31.12.1980. After his death, on or about 19.10.1982, her widow approached the then Chief M inister of Bihar for appointment of one of her son, on any vacant post with the petitioner No. 1. The Chief Minister ordered petitioner No. 1 to consider it as a special case. Accordingly, by letter dated 5.11.1982, petitioner No. 2 (the Superintendent, Government Vaccine Institute, Namkum, Ranchi) appointed respondent No. 2 (Shashi Bhushan Choudhary) on purported "compassionate ground" as Mazdoor and requested the Director of the Health Department to confirm the same. By letter dated 13.9.1983, the Health Department expressed its inability to confirm the said appointment. Accordingly respondent No. 2 was removed on 26.9.1983. He challenged the order of his removal vide C.W.J.C. No. 195 of 1987 (R), which was dismissed on 3.3.1987 by passing the following order: Heard. The service of the petitioner was terminated in 1983 and this writ petition has been filed on 25.2.1987. According to the petitioner he was repeatedly filing representations to the State Government for relief. We are not satisfied that the petitioner has explained the delay in filing the writ petition. This writ petition is dismissed. 4. Respondent No. 2 then moved the Supreme Court but his SLP No. 15230 of 1987(AN) was dismissed on 15.11.1989. Then he filed an application (Annexure-R/2-A) before petitioner No. 1 the Management on 28.6.1991 with a copy to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, raising a purported industrial dispute on the ground that his termination was illegal for non-compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (I.D. Act for short). On 24.1.1994, the following dispute was referred for adjudication: Whether Shri Sashibhusan Choudhary Mazdoor of Govt. Vaccine Institute Namkum, Ranchi is a workman under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947? If so, whether the termination of the services is proper? If not, what relief is entitled to? 5. On 24.1.1994, the following dispute was referred for adjudication: Whether Shri Sashibhusan Choudhary Mazdoor of Govt. Vaccine Institute Namkum, Ranchi is a workman under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947? If so, whether the termination of the services is proper? If not, what relief is entitled to? 5. Paragraph-7 of the award reads as follows: On the basis of the terms of reference and pleadings of the parties following points arises for determination. (i) Whether Sri Sashibhusan Choudhary Mazdoor of Government Vaccine Institute Namkum Ranchi is a workman under the I.D. Act, 1947? (ii) Whether the termination of his services is proper? (iii) What relief he is entitled to? 6. Annexures-R/2-E and R/2-F are the written statement and rejoinder to the managements written statement respectively filed by respondent No. 2. In his written statement, he pleaded that he was appointed on compassionate ground; he was a workman; he was terminated without following the provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act; the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay; the S.L.P. was dismissed on the same ground without hearing on merit. In his rejoinder, dismissed on the same ground without hearing on merit. In his rejoinder, respondent No. 2 changed his stand by saying that the rules of compassionate appointment were not applicable to him as he was not appointed on compassionate ground; he worked for more than 240 days; filing of writ petition and S.L.P. will not debar him from seeking remedy before Labour Court. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the award is perverse and is barred by res-judicata, as the challenge of respondent No. 2 to his termination was rejected by the High Court and then by the Honble Supreme Court. 8. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 submitted that as the matter was referred to the Labour Court by the State Government, after dismissal of the writ petitioner and SLP, the award is not barred by res-judicata. Management did not challenge the reference and did not raise the question of res-judicata before the Labour Court or in this writ petition before this Court. The question of res-judicata is a mixed question of law and fact and if the facts are not pleaded, petitioners are debarred from raising such plea. Management did not challenge the reference and did not raise the question of res-judicata before the Labour Court or in this writ petition before this Court. The question of res-judicata is a mixed question of law and fact and if the facts are not pleaded, petitioners are debarred from raising such plea. He further submitted that the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of delay, and dismissal of SLP in limine will not constitute res-judicata for deciding an industrial dispute for which there is no limitation, so long the dispute exists. He relied on the judgments of Kunhayammed and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr. and Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U.P. State Electricity Board and Ors. He further submitted that the delay may be a relevant ground on the question of back wages but not for deciding whether the termination was proper or not. 9. The contention of Mr. Singh cannot be accepted for the following reasons. There is no law under which petitioner is debarred from raising the question of res-judicata, if it has not challenged the reference. Rather in the case of D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration and Ors. raising preliminary issues in labour matters by the management was deprecated. In his pleadings, respondent No. 2 himself stated about dismissal of the writ petition and S.L.P. Nothing has been brought on record by respondent No. 2 to show that in spite of the knowledge of dismissal of writ petition and S.L.P., State Government referred the disputes. As such, it cannot be held that the question of res-judicata cannot be considered. 10. Against his termination on 26.9.1983, petitioner chose to file writ petition on 25.2.1987. It was dismissed on the ground of laches without any liberty. He then chose to challenge his termination by filing S.L.P., which was also dismissed without any liberty. Then he challenged his termination by raising a purported industrial dispute. In the circumstances, in my opinion, the respondent No. 2 was debarred from raising industrial dispute challenging his termination. Such action was not only barred by the principles of res-judicata but was also against the rule of public policy and was an abuse of the process of the court. AIR 1987 SC 83 (Sarguja Transport Service) can be seen. In the case of Kunhayammed (Supra) a review before the High Court was held maintainable, after dismissal of SLP. Such action was not only barred by the principles of res-judicata but was also against the rule of public policy and was an abuse of the process of the court. AIR 1987 SC 83 (Sarguja Transport Service) can be seen. In the case of Kunhayammed (Supra) a review before the High Court was held maintainable, after dismissal of SLP. In the case of Sapan Kumar Pandit (Supra), it was held that so long as the dispute existed, there was no delay in raising industrial dispute. In my opinion, these cases are of no help to the respondent No. 2 in the facts and circumstances of this case. 11. Moreover the award is based on alleged non-compliance of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. It was for respondent No. 2 to prove that he worked for 240 days. He did not prove it. In the absence of a finding that respondent No. 2 worked for 240 days, award is perverse. In the judgment of Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani it was held that the onus is on the workman to prove that he worked for 240 days. Further, the Labour Court should have enquired into the claim of respondent No. 2 that he was a workman and whether petitioner No. 1 was an industry. Respondent No. 2 has been held workman only because he worked for certain period. Further more, before deciding, whether the termination was proper or not, the Labour Court should have enquired, whether the appointment was valid or not, as apparently it was based on political pairvi, and without there being any provision for such appointment. 12. Mr. Singh could not show any provision under which on the death after superannuation of a Government employee, appointment could be given to his son on pairvi of the Chief Minister. Apparently, petitioners appointment was void being in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 13. It was lastly submitted that as respondent No. 2 has been working, on the basis of the interim order, for about eight years, sympathetic view may be taken. In my view, this Court cannot approve such appointment made on political pairvi. It will create a very bad precedent and will lead to dangerous consequences. 14. In the circumstances aforesaid, I am of the opinion that in any view of the matter, the impugned award cannot be sustained. In my view, this Court cannot approve such appointment made on political pairvi. It will create a very bad precedent and will lead to dangerous consequences. 14. In the circumstances aforesaid, I am of the opinion that in any view of the matter, the impugned award cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is quashed and termination of respondent No. 2 is held justified. 15. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. However, I am not imposing cost on respondent No. 2.