ARVIND KUMAR, J. - (1.) In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, the petitioner- workman has questioned the legality of the award dated January 24, 2005, passed by the Labour Court by virtue of which his claim for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages has been dismissed.
(2.) The petitioner, at one point of time, was workman of respondent No. 2 to 4-department. He raised an industrial dispute alleging therein that he had served the department as a "Mali" from the year 1990. His services were illegally terminated on September 18, 1999. He had completed 240 days of continuous service when his services were terminated. The department retained persons junior to him besides recruiting fresh hands after the termination of his services. Thus, violation of the provisions of Section 25-F to 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) was pleaded. On the other hand, the department contested the claim of the petitioner-workman by submitting that the services of the petitioner were engaged as labourer on daily wages, as per the requirement of the work and not as a Mali, as alleged. The petitioner never completed 240 days of continuous service with the department. Further, the allegations of retaining persons junior to the petitioner and that of recruitment of fresh hands were denied.
(3.) The Labour Court after analyzing the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties, vide the impugned award dated January 24, 2005 held that the petitioner had not completed 240 days of service in the twelve preceding months. He has failed to prove that any worker junior to him was retained or fresh recruitment was made by the department after his termination. Accordingly, the Labour Court, as said above, dismissed the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court.;