- (1.) Leave granted. This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 15.6.2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal No.2131/2005.
(2.) The appellant claims that he was employed as a daily-wage labourer in the Rural Dairy Centre, Bijapur, on 13.5.1977. He further alleges that he worked continuously and uninterruptedly till his services were illegally terminated with effect from 1.3.1980. The appellant did not challenge his termination.
(3.) Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( ID Act for short) was amended in Karnataka by the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1987 [Karnataka Act No. 5 of 1988] inserting the following as sub-sec. (4A) with effect from 7.4.1988 : "(4A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sec. 9C and in this section, in the case of a dispute falling within the scope of sec. 2A, the individual workman concerned may, within six months from the date of communication to him of the order of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination or the date of commencement of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1987, whichever is later, apply, in the prescribed manner, to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute and the Labour Court shall dispose of such application in the same manner as a dispute referred under sub-sec. (1)." Taking advantage of the new provision, on 4.10.1988, the appellant made an application to the Labour Court, Hubli (KID No.1055/88 subsequently transferred and renumbered as KID No. 497/1995 on the file of the Labour Court, Bijapur) seeking a declaration that his termination from service on 1.3.1980 was null and void and a direction for reinstatement with full back- wages, continuity of service and other consequential reliefs. The appellant contended that his termination amounted to illegal retrenchment, as the respondent failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Sec. 25F of ID Act even though he had worked continuously for more than 240 days in a year.;