Harish Tandon, J. - (1.) The instant case has chequered history. The appellant has been subjected to several round of litigation before this Court challenging the action of the authorities in terminating his employment without taking recourse to the provision of Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(2.) Admittedly, the appellant was engaged on Daily Rated Basis between the period from 01.07.1990 till 31.03.1991 continuously under the respondent no. 3 on the basis of the several orders of engagement issued in this regard. Thereafter the services of the appellant was not availed of which inculcated a sense that he has been terminated from services without following the statutory provisions contained in the said Act. The appellant approached the respondent authorities for reinstatement which could not yield a fruitful result. The appellant, thereafter, filed an application before the Conciliation Officer for settlement of the dispute but the said process of conciliation failed. A stand was taken by the respondent before the Conciliation Officer that the appellant did not work for more than 240 days within a calendar year and therefore, the condition precedent for compliance of the provision under the Industrial Disputes Act does not arise. On Submission of failure report by the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government made a reference to the Labour Court, Andaman & Nicobar Islands in the following: "Whether the action of the Divisional Forest Officer, Baratang in terminating/disengaging the service of Shri Christopher Minj, Ex-DRM is legal and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to."
(3.) The appellant filed statement of demand before the Labour Court which was contested by the respondent no. 3 by filing written objection. A stand was taken therein that the appellant was a seasonal worker and such engagement would terminate automatically on expiry of the period of engagement without any further notice. It is further contended that the appellant accepted the decision of the respondent no. 3 on disengagement and did not work thereafter. The Labour Court passed an award after recording the evidence of the respective parties rejecting the claim of the appellant on the ground of delay. The order/award of the Labour Court was challenged by the appellant In WP No. 209 of 2012 before this Court and the order/ award of the Labour Court was set aside and the matter was remanded for decision afresh.;