S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the workman challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 14.1.1999, copy annexure P/4, vide which it was held that he was not entitled to relief of reinstatement and other consequential benefits.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner -workman is that he was appointed on 1.6.1993 and had worked upto 1.2.1994 and he was again appointed on 4.3.1994 and worked upto 21.7.1994. The demand notice is that 11.8.1994. The Labour Court held that the petitioner was required to show that he had continuously worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months preceding the day of termination of his services but from the evidence on record, the Labour Court held that he has not done so. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the statement of the working days of the petitioner has been given by respondent No. 2 at Annexure R/1 in this writ petition. It is upto February, 1994. In this statement, the petitioner is stated to have worked for full month of February also. Be that as it may, even if the subsequent working days of the petitioner are not considered, the respondent had worked for more than 240 days. Annexure R/1 also can be treated as an admission of respondent that the petitioner worked for 273 days.
(3.) MOREOVER , there is an admission on the part of MW -1 Shri K.K. Mehta that the petitioner had worked from 4.3.1994 to 21.7.1994. According to MW -1 he left the job thereafter. The working days for this period would certainly be more than 240 days and it is not necessary that 240 days should be completed in a calendar year but they should be during the period of 12 calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made and if he was worked for 240 days he is to be treated having worked continuously for one year as per Section 25 -B(2)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The sub - sections can be reproduced as under : - "25 -B. Definition of continuous service : - XX XX XX (2) Where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer - a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than - (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case." The petitioner has, therefore, completed 240 days of service in the 12 months preceding the termination. The contention that the petitioner has left the service also cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the last day of the petitioner wilh the respondent is 21.7.1994 and demand notice has been issued in the very next month i.e. on 11.8.1994. The prompt issuance of demand notice in this case wipes out the scope of inferring'that the petitioner had left the job.;