- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.N. Singh learned counsel for the respondent-workman.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that although the workman concerned did not complete the requisite period of 240 days of work, the impugned award was passed in his favour. The learned counsel for petitioner relied on statement made in paragraph 16 of the writ petition for the purpose of showing the actual number of days the workman concerned worked. The learned counsel for the respondent-workman contended that the impugned award has been passed after considering all necessary facts and in absence of any material shown by the employer to contradict the findings, no interference to be made.
(3.) After considering the aforesaid and perusing the materials available I find that the impugned award was passed considering the relevant facts. It also recorded that no dispute was raised on most of the relevant aspects. A contention was raised by the employers that the workman did not complete 240 days period of work, as required in law for relief. A perusal of the writ petition does not indicate that even at this stage the petitioner has successfully brought facts showing actual number of days for which the workman concerned is entitled to benefit viz., the number of days for which the workman was on leave and had paid holidays. These facts have not been disclosed in the writ petition for the purpose of contradicting the finding of the Labour Court. Mere actual number of days of work will not justify this Court to conclude otherwise. No material has been shown on which a finding could have been reached by the Labour Court that the workman concerned did not complete the requisite period. Admittedly, the workman was in service from January 6, 1990 to May 31, 1992. Non-compliance of the requirement of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act is also admitted. Therefore, there is no ground for interference with the impugned award. The learned Standing Counsel relied on a judgment in the case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi v. State of Bihar 1997 (4) SCC 391 : (1998-II-LLJ-15). But as nothing has been shown on facts that the workman was not employed in an industry, the said law cannot help the petitioner.;