- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Sunil Vijayvergi challenging the award dated 29.11.2012 passed by the labour Court First, Jaipur. The reference was made to the Labour Court to the effect whether removal of the petition from he services from 13.07.1997 was legal and valid and if not what relief he is entitled to The Labour Court answer the reference in affirmative, thus holding the petitioner not entitled to any relief.
(2.) Shri Amin Ali, learned counsel for petitioner argued that the labour Court has erroneously recorded the finding that the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in his second inning. In fact the petitioner had worked with the respondent on the post of cattle guard from 01.07.1988 to 31.03.1992. His services were discontinued on 31.03.1992 without following the due process of law. Thereafter on his own request, the petitioner was again reinstated in service on 02.02.1997. Petitioner was given the work in T.B. Hospital nursery, where he did the work till 13.07.1997. Again his services were terminated on 13.07.1997. These facts were proved by the evidence before the Labour Court. It is wrongly held however that two periods cannot be clubbed and the petitioner was required to prove his work for 240 days in preceding one calendar year. It is argued that there is no such required in law. Provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the ID Act') have not been correctly construed by the Labour Court. Even otherwise, if it is proved that the petitioner had worked from 01.07.1988 to 31.03.1992 the date when his services were terminated, he had completed continuous service for more than two years and before terminating his service, the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act ought to have been followed.
(3.) Perusal of the impugned award indicates that the the date, on which, according to the workman, he was retrenched, was 13.07.1997. As per his assertion in the statement of claim he was engaged on 02.02.1997. He has also asserted this in his affidavit. Even the above assertion of the petitioner is accepted to be true, he has not worked for 240 days in the second inning. The petitioner had filed the claim and the respondents contested the same. If the plea of the petitioner is accepted that he waas illegally removed on 31.03.1992, it was open to him to take steps with regard to alled removedl on that day. Although the management in their reply to the statement of claim did not admit that he continously worked for the period from 01.07.1988 to 31.03.1992. According to the management, the petitioner worked with them on from 01.08.1988 to 30.09.1988 and abundaned the work on his own. They thereafter stated that he worked for ten days in the month of March, 1989 and thereafter came back in the month of July, 1989 and worked till April, 1990. They have denied in para 1 and 2 of the counter to the statement of claim what the petitioner asserted that he worked till 31.03.1992, therefore it was required to be provided by leading evidence that the petitioner worked continuously from 01.07.1988 to 31.03.1992.;