N.L.TIBREWAL,J. - (1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges termination of his service as Class -IV employee. The termination is being challenged to be in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section - 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act.)
(2.) NORMALLY , this Court is reluctant to decide disputed questions of fact in writ jurisdiction keeping in view that the workman has an alternative remedy under the Act. However, In the present case, from the pleadings of the parties it is clear that the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding his termination and admittedly, the provisions of Section - 25F of the Act have not been complied with, as such, it is just and proper to decide this petition on merits. In brief, the petitioner's case is that he was first time appointed on 15th April 1989 as Class -IV employee in the office of respondent No. 3 and he continuously worked there upto the end of January 1990 on daily wages at the rate of Rs. 14/ - This fact is not denied by the respondents that the petitioner worked from 15th April 1989 to January 1990 on daily wages as Class -IV employee in the office of respondent No. 3.
(3.) THE further contention of the petitioner is that in February 1990, though he had worked in the same office, payment was made to him in the name of one Prem Prakash and this was done to show the break in his service. However, this fact is denied by the respondents in their reply.;