S.A BOBDE,J . - (1.) HEARD Smt. Dangre, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioners and Shri Gosavi, the learned counsel for the respordent.
(2.) THE petitioners who are officers of the Irrigation Department have by this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India challenge the order dated 29 -12 -1990 by which the learned Labour Court Bhan -dara has set aside the termination of the respondent dated 1 -7 -1986 and granted him reinstatement on payment of 15% of back wages. Before the Labour Court, the respondent was engaged by the petitioners in the irrigation Department from 2 -2 -1980 to 31 -12 - 985. He was terminated with effect from 1 -7 -1986. For sometime the respondent was engaged on regular muster roll of the department and for some time under the E.G.S. Having been terminated without compliance by section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 i.e. without having been given a notice and retrenchment compensation as contemplated by that section, and in contravention of section 25 -G, since his juniors were retained, he raised an industrial dispute. It seems, that conciliation having failed, the dispute was referred under section 10(1) read with section 12 of Industrial Dispute Act to the Labour Court. There appears to have been no dispute before the Labour Court about whether the Irrigation Department is an industry. On appreciation of evidence led before it, the Labour Court found that the petitioners have admitted the respondent was engaged for work on the canal for supply of water during the aforesaid period. They further claimed that there were gaps during that period. According to petitioners, the respondent had not completed 240 days of service. According to respondent, it was not necessary to comply with sections 25 -F and 25 -G of the Industrial Disputes Act because the respondent had not been in continuous service for a year as contemplated by those provisions. The petitioner contended that the respondent had been employed for a period of 240 days since he was not paid throughout the period of his employment by the respondent but there were periods of time when he was paid under the E.G.S. Fund under section 12 of Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977.
(3.) IT appears that the petitioners produced two muster rolls, one of workman engaged by the department, and another, of those provided to the department under Employee Guarantee Scheme. The Labour Court considered both the Muster Rolls and found that after taking into account number of days on which the respondent worked both when paid by the department and when paid from the E.G.S. Fund, he had completed more than 240 days of service.;