Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE petitioner -workman in the instant writ application, has challenged the award dated 29th May, 2012, passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, wherein the reference made by the State Government has been answered in negative against the petitioner -workman for the dispute was raised after 19 years.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the indispensable skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised are that the petitioner -workman was engaged on daily wages basis in the year 1986, until his employment was terminated on 31st August, 1988. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that preceding the date of his termination w.e.f. 31st August, 1988, he had completed more than 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months. Therefore, termination of his services, in violation of the mandate of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1947', for short). On a reference made by the State Government on 11th March, 2008, in exercise of powers under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act of 1947, the petitioner -workman was called upon to submit his statement of claim, which was filed on 28th March, 2008. The respondent -employer filed reply to the statement of claim on 28th May, 2009, resisting the claim and specifically pleaded that the petitioner -workman was never in the employment of the respondent -employer. Moreover, the petitioner -workman did not complete 240 or more days in the employment of the respondent -employer, and thus, there was no violation of any of the provisions of Act of 1947. The Labour Court, taking into consideration pleadings of the parties, evidence tendered and upon hearing the representatives of the parties, dismissed the claim of the petitioner -workman. While answering the reference in negative and against the petitioner -workman for raising the industrial dispute after a delay of 19 years, the Labour Court further recorded a finding to the effect that the petitioner -workman failed to prove the fact that he had been in the employment for 240 or more days in the calender year preceding the termination of employment.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner -workman and with his assistance perused the materials available on record as well as carefully considered the impugned award dated 29th May, 2012.;