Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE State -petitioners, in the instant writ application, have challenged the award dated 10th April, 2008, passed by the Labour Court -2, Rajasthan, Jaipur, while answering the reference made by notification dated 24th February, 1999, in negative and in favour of the respondent -workman. While holding the action of the State -petitioners in terminating the employment of the respondent -workman as illegal and invalid. The Labour Court -II, Rajasthan, Jaipur made a direction for reinstatement with continuity in service and consequential benefits, but without any back wages.
(2.) SHORN off unnecessary details, the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy needs to be first noticed. Mr. J.M. Sexena, Addl. Advocate General, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, while assailing the legality and validity of the impugned award emphasized that the award made is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the material available on record so much so that the respondent -workman did not complete 240 days in the calender year preceding termination of his services, in a particular office.
(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel since the respondent -workman was engaged in different Divisions, the number of days could not have been clubbed together for the purpose of arriving at a finding of 240 days as contemplated under Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947', for short). Since the respondent -workman was engaged on job basis, he cannot be construed to be an employee of petitioners. Further, the Labour Court -II, Rajasthan, Jaipur, fell in gross error in arriving at the finding of continuous employment of the respondent -workman for 240 days, in the preceding calender year.;