- (1.) Challenge in the instant writ petition is to the award dated 19.11.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala whereby the reference as regards termination of services of the workman/present petitioner has been answered in favour of the Management and against the workman.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner-workman had joined service as a Mali on daily wage basis on 1.6.1995 and worked continuously till 25.12.2005 whereupon his services were verbally terminated and he had not been allowed to join duties w.e.f. 26.12.2005. Learned counsel would argue that the petitioner while deposing as WW1 had categorically stated with regard to his date of joining and having worked continuously till the date of termination and as such, the Labour Court has erred in holding that he had not completed 240 days of service in the preceding 12 months from the date of termination. Learned counsel has further argued that the Management/respondent Forest Department had produced the record pertaining to the dates of service rendered by the workman on selective basis and the entire record had not been produced and on this count, an adverse inference should have been drawn against the employer. Learned counsel has assailed the impugned award by raising yet another contention that in the demand notice dated 6.1.2006 the petitioner-workman had specifically stated that persons junior to him were retained, whereas his services had been terminated and such course of action was in clear violation of Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act').
(3.) Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the onus was upon the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in the 12 months preceding his date of termination i.e. 25.12.2005 and which was not discharged. It is submitted that the workman never worked for 240 days in the Forest Department during any calender year including 12 months preceding 12/2005 and as such, the question of violation of Section 25-F of the Act does not arise. Learned State counsel would argue that the impugned award is well-reasoned and has been passed on due appreciation of evidence and does not call for any interference.;