- (1.) LEARNED Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition against the award dated 11.11.1999 passed by Labour Court (First), Jaipur, giving rise to this Special Appeal. The Labour Court adjudicated the dispute on the legality and validity of the termination of the services of the respondent by the appellant -Bank on 31.7.1989. The evidence was led by the parties, on which the Labour Court recorded a finding of fact that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days; that, his services were continuous from 12.4.1988 to 1.7.1989, and consequently, the termination of his services would fall within the meaning of retrenchment, for which provisions of Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and Rule 77 of the Rules of 1958, were not followed. The award declared that the termination of his services was illegal and improper, and directed his reinstatement with continuity in service. The back wages were however, confined to 50%. Learned Single Judge has, after considering the arguments raised by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and the discussion on the evidence from paragraphs 15 to 19 of the award, upheld the findings that the workman had completed 240 days in a calender year, preceding the date of his retrenchment. He had continuously worked from 12.4.1988 to 1.7.1989, with minor breaks of one or two days, which was held to be unfair labour practice.
(2.) IT is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that labour court and learned Single Judge failed to consider that no appointment letter was produced; the respondent was not employed by the appellant -Bank, and that, he had never claimed the salary, after the date of termination of his services.
(3.) THE appellant has essentially disputed the findings of fact, which were arrived at by the Labour Court after discussion of the evidence. Learned Single Judge did not find any error in the findings of fact recorded by the labour court. It is submitted that the findings are perverse, and thus, learned Single Judge should have taken into consideration the evidence led by the employer, which clearly established that the respondent -workman was not an employee of the bank, and that, he had only completed 153 days of work, with breaks between 12.4.1988 to 1.7.1989.;