Mohammed Rafiq, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have filed this writ petition against the award dated 28.02.2001 passed by the learned labour Court Jodhpur whereby it is answered the reference made to it by appropriate government vide Notification dated 11th July, 2005. The reference was made on the question whether removal of the respondent -workman by the petitioners from their services w.e.f. 6th October, 1986 was legal and valid and if not what relief was he entitled to.
(2.) CLAIM set up by the workman before the Labour Court was that he was appointed with the office of the petitioners on daily wages basis as L.D.C. on 02.08.1985. The petitioner issued appointment order to him on 16.08.1985 and thereafter extended his service by order dated 14.05.1986 for a period of three months. Even after expiry of three months, the respondent continued to work with the petitioners till 06.10.1986 on which date he was removed. The petitioners did not comply the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 prior to his removal even though the workman had completed 240 days in the calendar year immediately preceding the date of his removal. Three of his juniors Khangar Singh, Radha Kishan and Vimlesh Kumar were retained in employment whereas the respondent was removed. Threre was thus violation of Section 25 -G of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short "the Act"). The case of the workman is that he worked with the petitioners from 02.08.1985 to 31.12.1985 for 117 days and thereafter from 01.01.1986 to 05.10.1986 for 216 days thus in total for 333 days. The petitioner contested the claim of the workman and filed reply to the statement of his claim. It was stated that the respondent was engaged on daily wage basis @ 15 per day in the month of August, 1985. He thereafter resigned from service from 15th October, 1985 and then was again angaged in November, 1985. It was thereafter the workman in the month of April, 1986 resigned from service on the ground of his illness. Even after the workman was again engaged and allowed to work upto 6.10.1986, the period of services rendered by him prior to resignation cannot be counted for the purpose of computing 240 days within the meaning of Section 25 -B of the Act. The total working days of the workman after he was engaged afresh in the month of May, 1986 till he worked with the petitioners upto 6th October, 1986 came to only 130 days and therefore there was no violation of Section 25 -F of the Act. It was stated that in so far as the workman Khangar Singh, Radhey Kishan and Vimlesh Kumar were concerned, all of them were reinstated in compliance of the judgment passed by this Court. The claim of the workman is therefore liable to be rejected.
(3.) I have heard Mr. Rameshwar Dave, Dy. Government Advocate for the State and Mrs. Deepika Vyas, for the respondents and perused the record.;