- (1.) This petitioners challenge award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 -workman with 50% backwages.
(2.) At the instance of the workman, dispute about justifiability of termination of services of the workman, was referred for adjudication. Claim of the workman was that he was appointed on 1.10.1994 and his services were terminated on 25.10.1995 without complying with Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ''the Act ''). The management disputed the claim, inter -alia, on the ground that the workman did not complete 240 days of continuous service and there was no violation of Sec. 25F of the Act. The Labour Court recorded a finding that the workman had completed 240 days of service and thus, there was violation of Sec. 25F of the Act.
(3.) In this petition, contention raised is that the workman had not completed 240 days of service and that the workman being a daily wager and there being no post against which he could be reinstated, his reinstatement with backwages was not justified. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. We find merit in the contention raised. The petitioner is a statutory Government authority governed by rules and regulations.;