M.L. Bhat, J. - (1.) The petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari against the award of the Labour Court dated 19-9-1983. The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus also against the respondents No. 2 and 3 to allow him to resume the work in their establishment and to declare that the petitioners services were wrongfully terminated. A direction is also sought to the Labour Court to rehear the matter afresh and decide the case in accordance with law.
(2.) The petitioners case is that a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The petitioner No. 1 was the union who had espoused the cause of the petitioner No. 2 who was a workman. The Labour Court after the trial of the reference held that the workman had not completed 240 working days, therefore, his removal would not amount to retrenchment and he was not entitled to any relief under the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners case is that he had completed 240 working days, therefore, he could not have been removed from service unless the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act were followed and complied with.
(3.) During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted some documents along with supplementary affidavit and wanted to rely on the said documents. However, he was directed to give copies of the said documents to the respondent No. 2, who was asked to file counter-affidavit within two weeks from the date of receipt of copies of the document and the copy of the supplementary affidavit. This order was passed on 5-8-1992 and the respondent No. 2 had to file counter-affidavit by 8-9-1992. The learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter filed service affidavit indicating that copy of the supplementary affidavit and documents were served on the respondent No 2. The case was taken up on 15-4-1993. After the revision of the list nobody appeared for the respondents, therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner was heard.;