Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. Both these petitions have been taken up together for adjudication as the same are directed against Award dated 20.2.1992 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Labour Court). For convenience and clarity, facts have been taken from writ petition No. 7485 of 1992. Respondent No. 2 Ashok Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the workman) during his employment with the petitioner i.e. Chandigarh Industrial & Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the CITCO) as Manager (Canteen/Cafeteria) suffered termination of his services on 23.6.1986 vide order Annexure P-4 on the ground that his post had been abolished to enforce economy in the administrative expenses. He challenged termination of his services on the ground that the post against which he was working had not been abolished. He offered to work on any post available with the CITCO. He alleged malafides against the competent authority. It was claimed that fresh recruitment has inter alia been made against the post earlier held by him. His representation of 21.7.1986 for providing him employment on any post available with the CITCO did not find favour with the authorities. He, consequently, raised an industrial dispute. 2. On a reference made to it, the Labour Court, Chandigarh verdict in favour of the workman ordering his reinstatement and continuity of service with back wages at the rate of 70%. 3. Aggrieved with the Award (Annexure P-8) of 20.2.1992, the workman as also the CITCO filed separate writ petitions. Whereas the workman sought modification in the Award claiming full back wages, the CITCO sought quashing of the Award asserting validity of Order (Annexure P-4) regarding termination of his services. 4. Stand of the CITCO is that termination order (Annexure P-4) of services of the workman on 23.6.1986 was in compliance with provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act). It was claimed that the post against which the workman was continuing in employment was abolished due to rationalisation in terms of the Third Schedule of the Act and no fresh appointment was made. 5. Hearing has been provided to counsel for the parties while going through the paper book. 6. Pursuant to appointment letter (Annexure P-1) of 4.7.1984 the workman had joined as Manager (Canteen/cafeteria) with the CITCO. 5. Hearing has been provided to counsel for the parties while going through the paper book. 6. Pursuant to appointment letter (Annexure P-1) of 4.7.1984 the workman had joined as Manager (Canteen/cafeteria) with the CITCO. After successful completion of probation period vide communication (Annexure P-2) of 6.8.1985, his services were regularised. The communication (Annexure P-4) had come as a shock to him when his services were terminated with immediate effect. 7. Going through the paper book, it transpires that neither any notice was given to the workman nor any charge-sheet was served to him. There were no adverse remarks in his confidential reports. There is nothing to show that the post of Manager (Canteen/cafeteria) was abolished. Had it been so, there was to be specific order of abolition of that post. Even order (Annexure P-4) nowhere mentions about abolition of the post, against which the workman was working. 8. It has not been denied by the CITCO that after termination of services of the workman, its business had proliferated manifold. New hotel under the name & style of 'Shivalik View' was started having multiple posts against one of those, this workman could very well be adjusted. Yet, another canteen had been started at the Bus Stand, Chandigarh which was having post of Manager (Canteen/cafeteria) but the workman was not called to work against any of such posts. 9. Though there is no specific material to hold that removal of the workman was pursuant to any bias or agenda of the new Managing Director of the CITCO but allegations of the workman that he had been appointed in the regime of the earlier Managing Director with whom the new incumbent (who was earlier working as General Manager) was not going on well and after taking over as Managing Director after retirement of the earlier one, he had ordered for termination of his services the same day had not been effectively repudiated. He had minced no words in stating further that even fresh appointments were made by the competent authority. There is absolutely no explanation clearing this mist, emerging from the CITCO. 10. At this stage, it is worth notice that services of one Vipin Kumar Rishi, a colleague of the workman had also been terminated concomitantly with termination of services of the workman. There is absolutely no explanation clearing this mist, emerging from the CITCO. 10. At this stage, it is worth notice that services of one Vipin Kumar Rishi, a colleague of the workman had also been terminated concomitantly with termination of services of the workman. This employee had also raised an industrial dispute which was adjudicated by the Labour Court and consequent upon the Award in his favour, he was reinstated. When questioned, counsel for the CITCO had no explanation much less convincing as to why reinstatement was not made in case of the petitioner. It is an admitted case of the parties that about the termination of the petitioner affected by the new Managing Director on the very date of his joining as such, no communication was sent to the Government, thus, violating mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act. 11. The Labour Court was not impressed by the plea of the CITCO that no notice under Section 9A of the Act was required to be served. After considering the evidence produced by the CITCO, the Labour Court had further come to a firm finding that there was violation of Section 25H of the Act as well, as after ushering in of Hotel Shivalik View in the establishments of the CITCO, number of posts had been created. It is an admitted case of the parties that representation of the workman for re-consideration of his case and for employment, was pending. The workman had opted to work against any post to be made available by the CITCO. 12. Viewed from another angle, case of Vipin Kumar Rishi, a similarly situated workman with the petitioner also provides fillip to the case of the petitioner workman. Order of termination of his services was also held to be bad vide Award of 1.5.1991. 13. From the discussion and appraisal of material available on the paper book, it is held that the Labour Court had rightly set aside the order of termination of the workman to be illegal and unsustainable and consequently had rightly ordered for reinstatement with continuity of service. 14. Plea of the workman is for full back wages whereas the Labour Court had held him entitled to back wages only @ 70% as was done in the case of Vipin Kumar Rishi. 14. Plea of the workman is for full back wages whereas the Labour Court had held him entitled to back wages only @ 70% as was done in the case of Vipin Kumar Rishi. Though no circumstances or material have been given by the Labour Court to arrive at quantum of 70% of wages hitherto payable to him but since the workman has all through claimed parity with case of Vipin Kumar Rishi seeking his reinstatement in the job, the Labour Court had given only 70% of back wages to him. In a situation of much sought after parity by the workman with the case of Vipin Kumar Rishi, Award of the Labour Court granting 70% of back wages to the workman cannot be pin-pointed for attack. In view of the above discussion, the Award (Annexure P-8) dated 20.2.1992 passed by the Labour Court is affirmed and both the petitions being devoid of any merit therein, are dismissed. __