- (1.) Heard Mr.K.N.Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears on behalf of the respondent, though the name of learned counsel on his behalf appears in the cause list. No prayer for adjournment has been made on his behalf as well. Having regard to the year of registration of the appeal, we are not inclined to postpone the hearing of the appeal.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are that the respondent-workman was employed under the appellant-Board on daily wages basis on and from 01.01.1996. His services were terminated on 01.08.1998. According to the Board, the respondent-workman was employed under it to realise octroi, a levy that was discontinued with effect from 01.08.1998, as a consequence whereupon, having regard to the nature of this engagement, his services were discontinued.
(3.) The respondent-workman raised a dispute which was eventually referred to the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer and the reference was registered as case No.3/2003. In the said proceeding, the appellant-Board in its reply controverted his (respondent-workman's) claim of having worked for more than 240 days continuously. The assertion of termination of his services in contravention of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was also disputed. The learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer on 14.11.2006 held the termination of the respondent-workman to be illegal and in violation of the aforementioned provision of the Act and directed his reinstatement without backwages. Being aggrieved, the Board invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. By the impugned judgment and order, its challenge having failed, it is in appeal for redress.;