M.N.BHANDARI,J. - (1.) By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the award of Labour Court dated 08.06.2015, whereby, termination of service of the workman is held to be illegal thus a direction to reinstate with all consequential benefits has been given.
(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that present case has chequered history. Initially when the Labour Court decided the reference, it was adverse to the workman. A writ petition was filed by the workman to challenge the award of the Labour Court. It was dismissed however on an appeal before the Division Bench, award of the Labour Court so as judgment of the learned Single Judge were set aside. The case was remanded back to the Labour Court for afresh adjudication. It is after noticing the order passed by the Payment of Wages Authority where a direction for payment of salary for two months was given but the period was not added to determine the total working days. The Division Bench recorded admission 2 of the management regarding engagement of the workman since 10.07.1997 till 31.07.1999. The judgment of the Division Bench for it was not challenged by the petitioner herein though counsel has raised many questions about the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench. It cannot be considered by this court but could have been on an appeal before the Apex Court. After remand of the case, the Labour Court has decided the reference in favour of the workman. It is after holding that workman has worked for two years from the year 1997 till 1999. It was also found that name of the workman was struck-off from the register thus it amounts to retrenchment and Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short "the Act of 1947") has not been followed.
(3.) Learned counsel submits that workman was required to prove his working for 240 days in a year to allege termination to be in violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. In absence of proof of working for 240 days, award of the Labour Court would not be tenable.;