VYAS, J. - (1.) BY the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned award dated 14. 5. 2001 (Annexure 5) may be quashed and set aside and the he may be reinstated with all consequential benefits.
(2.) BRIEF facts, giving rise to the instant petition, are not initially, vide order No. 12414 dated 27. 9. 1984, the petitioner appointed as daily rated employee. He worked upto March 31, 1985, in different Sections and he completed 142 days and, therefore, he was again appointed vide Order No. 3262 dated 23. 4. 1985 and he worked upto the date of termination, i. e. 10. 8. 1985. Thus, the petitioner claims that he has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. It is further averred by the petitioner in the instant petition that vide order dated 10. 8. 1985, his services were terminated by the respondents by a verbal order, without giving him any notice and without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1947' ). Thereafter, the petitioner made a complaint before the Conciliation Officer, by way of raising an Industrial Disputes invoking the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, 1947. The Conciliation Officer took cognizance of the complaint and issued notices to the respondents. The respondents submitted their comments. Ultimately, the conciliation proceedings failed and the Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report before the appropriate government. The appropriate Government vide Notification No. 96 dated March 23, 1988, made a reference for adjudication to the Labour Court, Jodhpur. In pursuance to the reference, the Labour Court registered case No. 77/98 and issued notices to the parties. The petitioner as as respondents put in appearance before the Labour Court and filed statement of claim and reply thereto, supported by the respective affidavits. The petitioner stated in his statement of claim that he has completed 240 days in a calendar year, so his termination is bad in the eye of law as it is violative of Chapter 5 (A) of the Act, 1947. The petitioner also submitted that his services were taken by the respondents from 29. 9. 1984 to 9. 8. 1985 and before terminating his services, no seniority list was issued by the respondent and persons junior to the him, namely, Shri Sajjan Singh, Shri Mahtap Singh, Shri Rameshwar, Shri Srikishan and Shri Permanand were retained in the services, whereas the services of the petitioner were illegally terminated by the respondent. The petitioner as well as the respondents were cross-examined on their affidavits before the Labour Court. After conclusion of the evidence, the petitioner filed an application dated 1. 5. 2001 (Annexure 4) under Order 13, Rule 19 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for summoning the relevant record before the Labour Court, Jodhpur, but the same was not considered by the Labour Court and was rejected vide order dated 1. 5. 2001. The Labour Court held that since the petitioner has not completed 240 days in a calendar year, he is not entitled to any relief. Consequently, vide award dated 14. 5. 2001, the claim petition of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Labour Court, Jodhpur.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the impugned award dated 14. 5. 2001 (Annexure 5), passed by the learned Labour Court, Jodhpur, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition before this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Labour Court, Jodhpur, without calling the record and even without considering the application for calling the record has decided the case against the petitioner. The petitioner has stated on oath that he has completed 240 days in a calendar year and in order to substantiate this statement, he has filed the application before the Labour Court for summoning the record, but his application has been rejected by the Labour Court, whereas the statement of Shri Sunil Singhal (Annexure 3), who has given the statement on the basis of his personal knowledge, but in the absence of the relevant record, has been relied upon by the Labour Court. This, in this view of the matter, according to the learned counsel, the learned Labour Court has committed an error apparent on the face of the record. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Labour Court has ignored the cross examination of Shri Sunil Singhal (Annexure 3), in which he has specifically stated that no entry in the Muster Roll, regarding the amendment of the service of the petitioner, was marked. Despite this, the learned Labour Court has given finding against the petitioner. ;