- (1.) The petitioner in the instant writ application has assailed the legality, validity and correctness of the award dated 8th November, 2012, passed by the Labour Court-1, Jaipur, wherein the Labour Court has answered the reference in negative and against the petitioner-workman.
(2.) Briefly, the indispensable skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised needs to be first noticed. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that he was engaged on daily wages basis with effect from 1st January, 1993, and continued to work until termination of his employment on 1st August, 1997. On an industrial dispute raised, the State-respondents in exercise of the powers under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the act of 1947'), made a reference on 4th January, 1999 to the Labour Court-1, Jaipur. On a consideration of statement of claim, response filed by the respondent-employer, evidence adduced by the parties and materials available on record, the Labour Court answered the reference against the petitioner-workman holding that the petitioner-workman could not prove the fact of termination of his employment on 1st August, 1997, and therefore, was not entitled to any relief.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, emphathatically argued that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts, evidence and material available on record. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner had completed 240 days in the preceding calender year and therefore, termination of his employment without any notice, notice pay and retrenchment compensation, is in violation of the mandate of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.;