S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 4.9.1998, copy Annexure P/3, vide which respondent No. 2 was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages.
(2.) THE award of the Labour Court has been assailed on the following grounds : - i. Respondent No. 2 has not completed 240 days and even from his pleadings, he cannot be said to have completed 240 days of service. ii. The Labour Court has accepted the argument of unfair labour practice for which there is no pleading. iii. The Labour Court has wrongly placed the burden of proving that respondent No. 2 has completed 240 days, on the petitioner. So far as unfair labour practice is concerned, it can be seen that there is no pleading in the demand notice or the claim statement. Therefore, the question is whether the respondent No. 2 has completed 240 days of service and whether the pleadings of the petitioner will come in his way and that the burden is wrongly placed on the petitioner.
(3.) THE case of the petitioner in the deposition is that respondent No. 2 joined service on 1.9.1991 and he worked upto 12.6.1992. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the Claim statement which is produced on record at Annexure P/1. In the claim statement, it has been stated by the respondent No. 2 that he was appointed on 1.9.1991 and his services were terminated on 15.1.1992.;