C.P. BHARGAV Vs. MANDABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complaint (ULPA) No.399 of 1992 filed by the respondent No.1 under Sections 7 and 28 read with Item 1 Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 was allowed by the Labour Court by its judgment and order dated 23/08/2002. The complainant is directed to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages by setting aside the termination dated 13/07/1992. Revision (ULPN) No.381 of 2002 preferred by the employer has been dismissed by the Industrial Court on 31/07/2003. Hence, this writ petition by the employer.

(2.) It is not in dispute that during pendency of this writ petition, the respondent No.1 is permitted to join the duties and she is working as a part time employee since then. The employer has deposited an amount of Rs. 84,500.00 in this Court on 30/05/2007 as per the order passed by this Court.

(3.) With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have gone through the judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below. Apparently, the finding recorded by both the Courts below, that the employee has established continuous service of 240 days preceding the date of termination of service, is based upon the sole testimony of one Laxman. There is no material brought on record to show that there was non compliance of Sec. 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act. Prima facie the finding recorded by both the Courts below about completion of 240 days continuous service is without any basis. Be that as it may, the employee is already reinstated in service and working on the post in question. Hence, the order of termination was quashed and set aside for non compliance of Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is, therefore, always open for the employer to follow the provisions of Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, in the event if the termination of the employee is proposed in future. The order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court and confirmed in revision does not call for any interference.