- (1.) THIS Writ Petition is directed against an Award passed by the learned Labour Court on 23rd November, 2011 in I.D. Case No.9 of 2005.
(2.) BEFORE proceeding and dealing with this case, this Court would like to record an apparent incongruity in the Award which, in the penultimate paragraph, appears to have wrongly recorded that the demand of the petitioner is legal and justified, though, in the body of the judgment, the findings are against the petitioner with observations that persons appointed on contractual basis without following the procedure cannot be regularized. The Labour Court has taken into consideration the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Uma Devi Vs. State of Karnataka, 2006 1 SCC 1. The case appears to have been initiated on the basis of a Reference made under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for adjudication on the question as to whether the demand of Shri Gouranga Sarkar, ex -Daily Rated Mazdoor for reemployment as Daily Rated Mazdoor against his retrenchment of service was legal and justified and, in that context, the Labour Court has answered the Award, but with the aforesaid incongruity.
(3.) UPON a perusal of the judgment it is evident that the petitioner was initially appointed on daily rated basis from 1st October, 1995 and rendered continuous service with artificial breaks upto 31st May, 1999. He had completed more than 240 days of continuous service in a calendar year under the respondent. Thereafter, he was retrenched and according to the petitioner, the retrenchment was done contrary to the provisions of section 25(f) and 25(g) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner had requested for absorption, but since it was not done, the matter went to the Conciliation Officer where the Second Party/Respondent gave an assurance that he would be considered for reinstatement in due course. However, since he was not absorbed, a failure report was sent. Consequently, the petitioner prayed for reinstatement with all benefits.;