JOGINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to the man -days chart, placed on record by the respondent State, the petitioner has worked for 238 days in a block of 12 calendar months. He has been terminated without issuing any show cause notice under Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(2.) MR . P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioner himself has abandoned the job.

(3.) IT is apparent that the petitioner has not been permitted to complete 240 days to deprive him the benefit of mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The break in service of two days could be due to unfair labour practice, illness, shortage of funds etc. It is not believable that a workman in these days will ever abandon his job. The respondents have also not placed any tangible evidence on record (0 prove that the petitioner was ever served with a show cause notice to resume his duties. In these circumstances, the petitioner Will be deemed to have completed 240 days continuous service as per Section 25 -Bof the Industrial Disputes Ac 1947. He was entitled to the benefit of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act before hi retrenchment.