SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,J. - (1.) By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 21.11.2002 passed by the learned Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar whereby the workman Jhandu Ram was directed to be reinstated in service on the basis of the earlier agreement entered into between the parties before the conciliation officer whereby the said workman was denied earlier period of his service and was also not given back-wages or benefits in the nature thereof.
(2.) The petitioner has assailed the award dated 21.11.2002 on the ground that the period of 240 days could not be said to be counted from the date of retrenchment i.e. from 31.07.1995 and the learned Labour Court has erred in counting the period from 1992 to 31.07.1995 to count the 240 days. It is stated that the petitioner was taken on duty from time to time up to February 1995 and the last period for which he worked was from September 1994 to February 1995 and thus 240 days immediately preceding the so called retrenchment dated 31.07.1995 cannot be said to be completed and the workman has been wrongfully directed to be reinstated.
(3.) Per contra, the counsel for the respondent-workman has pointed out that the workman was admittedly appointed in February 1992 but has been wrongfully shown to have been on artificial breaks. Not only this, the complete muster roll was not placed before the learned Labour Court and, therefore, the Labour Court has rightly drawn an adverse inference as against the Government. He has also taken this Court to the award impugned where the learned Judge has also noted the compromise which had been put forward by the State Government itself to the concerned workman during the conciliation proceedings and the State Government had shown its willingness to reinstate him provided he does not claim earlier period of service. Taking the said offer/compromise, the learned Labour Court has only reinstated the petitioner in service but has not given him benefit of back-wages or continuity of service.;