S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - (1.) By this petition, the employer has challenged the award of the Labour court dated 30.11.1995 (Annexure P -9) vide which respondent No. 2 was ordered to be reinstated into service with full back wages and continuity of service.
(2.) The case of respondent No. 2 is that he was appointed as a Helper on 27.11.1985 and that his services were terminated in February, 1988. The case of the petitioner is that he was employed whenever the petitioner required casual labour and in any year during the period from 1985 to 1988, he had not completed 240 days and, therefore, he was not entitled to protection under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the respondent -workman had already completed 240 days in the employment of the petitioner when his services were terminated over a period of 2 -1/2 years. It will be appropriate to quote the relevant lines of paragraph 12 of the award : "12. There is no dispute regarding the proposition that a casual workman is a worker who is employed for work of a casual nature, but in case of this workman (Shyam Lal) we find that he had been in the employment of the respondent industry since 27.11.85. Reworked up to 29.2.88 when his services were terminated. He has obviously completed 240 days in the employment of respondent industry spread over a period of 2 -1/2 years. It is nowhere stated by the witnesses of the management that the nature of work assigned to be executed by the workman has been since finished. Even the pleadings are conspicuously absent in the written statement that the work had been finished and there was no fresh employment after the termination of this workman.... The Labour Court further observed as under : - "13. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already completed 240 days in the employment of the respondent -industry, it is held that the termination of services of the workman violated the provision under Sec. 25F of the ACt ibid and, therefore, he was entitled for reinstatement on duty with full back wages and continually in service. This issue is, therefore, decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Labour Court has given a finding to the effect that the respondent -workman had completed 240 days in the employment of the petitioner without any material on the record. The petitioner has controverted the stand in its written statement, copy of which has been produced as Annexure P -2 as also in deposition of MW -3 Vinod Kumar Goel (copy Annexure P -4). The counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Labour Court has not dealt with this and has come to a finding in this regard without basing its opinion on any evidence on the record. Counsel for the respondent has argued that this Court cannot go into the factual aspect of the case as the Labour Court is a fact finding Court and has relied on a decision in P.G.I. of M.E. and Research, Chandigarh v/s. Raj Kumar etc., JT 2001(1) SCT 326 (SC) :, 2000(1) SC 336 wherein it has been held that the Labour Court being the final court of facts came to a conclusion that payment of 60% back wages would comply with the requirement of law and that the finding of perversity or being erroneous or not in accordance with law shall have to be recorded giving reasons in order to assail the finding of the Tribunal or the Labour Court and it is not for the High Court to go into the factual aspects of the matter. The learned counsel for the respondent -workman also relied on a case in Chief Engineer, Irrigation v/s. Kamlesh and Ors., 1996(I) LLJ 122. It has been held by a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court therein that despite fact that the workmen did not actually work for 240 days in the last calender year of their service did not make any difference for attracting the provisions of Sec. 25F. However, in the present case, the Labour Court has come to a finding that the respondent -workman had completed 240 days without discussing any evidence. It has been held that the evidence relied upon by the petitioner is not trusty -worthy or even otherwise cannot be accepted. No reason has been given that he has worked for 240 days. On the contrary, the Labour Court has observed that he has worked for 240 days during a period of 2 -1/2 years. For this finding, the Labour Court did not try to point any evidence. No doubt the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of P.G.I, of M.E. and Research, Chandigarh (supra) is a well known principle. The Supreme Court in para 9 of its judgment has held that the perversity of the order would warrant intervention of the High Court. The award of the Labour Court is definitely perverse because it has not discussed any evidence and has not based its finding on any evidence. The order, therefore, deserves to be set aside. I, therefore, do not comment on the judgment in the case of Chief Engineer, Irrigation (supra).;