A.K. Parihar, J. - (1.) Petitioner has challenged the award dated 3.9.1996 passed by Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer by which termination of respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to be as 'respondent workman') has been held to be illegal and unjustified for want of non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent workman has been ordered to be reinstated with full back wages on daily wages basis. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court, however, held that respondent workman would not be entitled for regular pay scale of LDC and for regularisation on the post because the same can only be done in accordance with law and relevant Rules.
(2.) Mr. Bharat Vyas, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the award on the ground that petitioner University is not covered by the definition of "industry" as provided under the Act. He has further contended that respondent workman had not completed more than 240 days in one calendar year and, as such, the petitioner University was not required to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, in case the petitioner is treated as an industry.
(3.) Mr. Vyas has assailed the award also on the ground that the Labour Court was not justified in counting holidays while calculating number of days so as to attract provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Lastly, Mr. Vyas has contended that in view of recent judgment of Apex Court, the daily wages employees are not entitled for retrenchment compensation because such termination of service cannot be treated as retrenchment as defined under the Act.;