S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the employer, challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 30.9.1999 (annexed as Annexure P -4) vide which respondent No. 1 was re -instated in service with 75% back -wages. The case of respondent No. 1 is that he was appointed as Sewerman on 1.5.1994 on daily wages. On 9.2.1995 his services were terminated without assigning any reason. He was appointed as such against the permanent post and completed 240 days in a calendar year. He has contended that he was entitled to be heard before giving punishment of termination in the way that has taken place amounts to arbitrary practice. The petitioners filed written statement before the Labour Court and admitted that respondent No. 1 was engaged as Sewerman with effect from 1.5.1994 on daily wages. However, the other contentions are not admitted. It is contended that he was engaged purely on daily wages and had not completed 24 days. It was also contended that there was no violation of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter to be referred "Act") and the case of respondent No. 1 was not covered under the Act. It is also contended that respondent No. 1 did not complete 240 days of service. It was also contended that there was no violation of provisions of the Act. Labour Court after considering the evidence passed the impugned order.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that this writ petition is without merit. Labour Court has considered that so far as the period from 1.5.1994 upto 30.11.1994 is concerned both the parties agreed that respondent No. 1 had completed 214 days. Respondent No. 1 further contended that he remained in service upto 8.2.1995 and he was not allowed to work on 9.2.1995, while the case of the petitioner is that he did not work upto 30.1.1995 and not thereafter. Labour Court had considered W -2 to W -8 and that he remained on duty from 1.5.1994 upto 30.1.1994 and from the copy of the entries in the attendance register (Exbt.W -9 and Exbt. W -10), he worked from 1.5.1994 to 6.1.1995 continuously. Labour Court also consider the position of W -2 Kailash, Pump Operator, who produced the documents Exbt. W -2 to Exbt. W -10, that is it is the case of the petitioner that muster roll and other relevant record of the daily wages employees regarding the month of December 1994 and January, 1995 was destroyed due to floods in Rohtak and, therefore, the record could not be produced. This was stated by two witnesses of the petitioner. The Labour Court found that this stand taken by them was strange, in view of the fact that WW -2 Kailash -Pump operator produced in the Court attendance register from 1.5.1994 to 6.1.1995. Moreover, the registers upto 30.11.1994 were produced in the Court. There were floods in the year 1995 and according to the counsel for the petitioner, floods must have been in the month of July, 1995. If the floods have destroyed the record, then it is not shown as to how the record upto 30.11.1994 was available and the record subsequent that to was not available. It is, therefore, clear that plea of destruction of record has been wrongly taken by the petitioners just to escape from the reality. Labour Court has held that considering the attendance register upto 6.1.1995 also, respondent No. 1 has completed 240 days of service. We accept the findings. Therefore, we do not accept the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 1 had not completed 240 days. No further arguments have been advanced. This writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
(3.) PETITION dismissed;