S.S.SUDHALKAR, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the workman challenging the award of the Labour Court dated May 31, 1999 (copy Annexure P-9) vide which the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement and back wages was rejected.
(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that he was employed as a Tubewell Operator on June 25, 1992 onamonthly salary ofRs. 1017/- per month and he was not allowed to come for duty w.e.f. February 2, 1993. He raised the dispute which was not referred to the Labour Court. The petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 15758 of 1995 in this Court. The writ petition was allowed and the Labour Court was directed to take into consideration the averments made in the demand notice, after which the reference was made and the impugned award was passed thereafter. In the earlier writ petition, the defence taken by respondent No. 1 was that the petitioner had not completed 240 days of service. However, it was found by this Court that the reference was not sought on the ground that the petitioner had not completed 240 days and the allegation was of "unfair labour practice."
(3.) In the claim statement before the Labour Court, copy of which is produced at Annexure P-5, the petitioner has contended that respondent No. 1 is in the habit of terminating service of the employees before they could complete a period of 240 days, and that the services were illegally terminated. It is further contended that even the posts of Tubewell Operators still existed with the respondent. Copy of the written statement has been produced at Annexure P-6. Regarding the post of Tubewell Operators still existing, it has been contended that many tubewells are remaining out of order. However, it is not shown by the respondents that the posts were not available and hence the termination was made. No cogent reason has been given in the written statement for terminating the service of the petitioner. The Labour Court rejected the contention of the petitioner because he had not completed 240 days. It came to the conclusion that the working days of petitioner were 223 days, even if it is not the case of the petitioner that he had not completed 240 days, actually his working days were less by 17 days for the completion of period of 240 days of service will not come in the way in granting the relief.;