Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition against the Labour Court's award dated 4.12.2003 (Annex. 3) whereby reference made on behalf of the petitioner workman was dismissed.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the workman's claim remained uncontroverted because the respondent Corporation did not examine any witness in counter to the evidence led by the petitioner in support of his claim. As such, he submits that the impugned award rejecting the prayer made by the workman for declaring his termination to be illegal, as having been passed in contravention to the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act of 1947'), deserves to be quashed and set aside. He submits that though the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the petitioner failed to prove that he had continuously worked with the respondent Corporation for a period of 240 days cannot be questioned but despite that the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated on account of the illegal action of the respondents in not complying with the mandatory provisions of Sections 25G and 25H and the Rules 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes Rules. He, therefore, prays that the impugned award deserves to be quashed. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He contends that the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the petitioner failed to prove and establish that he continuously worked with the respondent Corporation for an uninterrupted period of 240 days is based on just and proper appreciation of evidence and cannot be interfered with in the exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. However, he concedes that the Labour Court while deciding the reference did not advert to the specific pleading made in the claim regarding the noncompliance of the situations governed by Sections 25G and 25H of the Act and Rules 77 and 78 of the Rules. He prays that the matter may be remanded back to the Labour Court and the Municipal Corporation be given liberty to lead evidence to the extent of these issues alone.
(3.) HEARD and considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and perused the impugned award.;