- (1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, dismissing the special leave filed by the appellant.
(2.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: Respondent was engaged as a casual labourer by the Assistant Engineer of the Microwave Project Borabas for the job of fixing of nuts and bolts in the Microwave Tower. After completion of the work and commissioning of the Microwave Towers, respondent was relieved from his job on 1.12.1987. Office of the Microwave, Kota, was also abolished as there was no need of work and in any event it was only of casual nature. Respondent raised a dispute to the effect that there was termination of his services which is illegal. The Labour Ministry, Govt. of India vide order dated 30.9.1991 referred the following dispute under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') to the Industrial Tribunal (Central) Kota, Rajasthan. "Whether the action of the AEN Microwave Project, Kota & LET, Jaipur in terminating the services of Shri Ramesh Chand, S/o Shri Jankidas, Casual Labour under AEN Microwave Project, Kota at Lawatbhata w.e.f. 1.12. 1987 is justified If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled -
(3.) On behalf of the applicant it was pleaded that he had been engaged as casual labourer on 8.12.1986 and, therefore, he having worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months could not have been terminated. The appellant took the stand that the respondent was engaged for doing a particular work on a casual labour basis. Since the establishment itself was closed after completion of the work there was no scope for accepting the prayer of the respondent. The Tribunal held that since the respondent worked for 240 days in the establishment of the present appellant, his termination will be bad as there was violation of the mandatory requirements of Section 25-F of the Act. Removal from service amounted to retrenchment under Section 2 (oo) of the Act. With these conclusions it was held that the respondent was entitled to be re-employed to continue to be in service along with the 30% back wages. A writ petition was filed before the High Court. A learned Single Judge by a very cryptic order held that the Labour Court has held that there was violation of the requirements of Section 25-F of the Act and, therefore, there was no legality. The Division Bench came to the similar conclusions.;