- (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 5.1.1993 (Annexure P/1) whereby the Labour Court, Rohtak has reinstated the workman with continuity of service and full back back wages by coming to a finding that unfair labour practice was committed by the State as services of the workman were terminated on the verge of 240 days being completed and that one other person was employed as Chowkidar after the termination of the services of the workman for re -employment.
(2.) SERVICE is complete but none appeared on behalf of respondent no.1.
(3.) A perusal of the award would go on to show that the finding was recorded that the workman alleged that he had worked from 2.4.1988 and his services were terminated on 27.6.1989. However, on perusal of the muster rolls, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that he was only engaged on 10.10.1988 and he remained in service till 22.6.1989 and, therefore, did not complete 240 days of service. It was, however, held that since the workman was on the verge of completing 240 days of service, therefore, his termination was held illegal and a finding was recorded that unfair labour practice was committed. It was further held that it was in violation of Section 25 -H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and one another person was employed as Chowkidar and no opportunity was given to the workman for re -employment when that person was employed as Chowkidar. The above findings in the opinion of this Court are not justified. Section 25 -T of the Act prohibits unfair labour practice. The same is defined under Section 2 (ra) of the Act as "unfair labour practice" and means any of the practices specified in the Fifth Schedule. As per Clause 10 of the 5th schedule to employ workmen as "badlis", casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen is defined as unfair labour practice. In the present case, a finding has been recorded that workman was employed on 10.10.1988 and according to the management he did not report for duty after 22.6.1989. In such circumstances, it is not a case where the worker was constantly being appointed on contract basis by giving intermittent breaks to avoid his completion of 240 days of service in a year. The observations of the Labour Court on this account, thus, are without any basis and not justified especially in view of the fact that no factual foundation had been laid in the claim petition.;