Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the award passed by the Labour Court No. 2 Jaipur dated 12.1.2001 whereby the Labour Court has answered the reference on the question of the validity of the removal of the petitioner by the respondents from their services and has held that his removal was valid and the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.
(3.) Shri D.C. Tiwari- Learned counsel for the petitioner argued the Labour Court has erroneously held the petitioner for availing the weekly holidays was required to prove his working for continuous 240 days. Petitioner has proved before the Labour Court that he worked in the calender year preceding the date of retrenchment on 17.4.1999 for 218 days but the Labour Court recorded an erroneous finding that the period of weekly holidays would not be admissible to the petitioner because he has not continuously worked for such period and that his work in the months of April 1989, July 1989, August 1989, September 1989 October 1989 and November 1989 has not been for the duration of full month. His Services cannot be treated as continuous and he would not be entitled to any relief. Learned counsel has submitted that Labour Court has misinterpreted the provisions of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was argued that there was violation of not only Section 25F of the Act but also of Section 25G and 25H and that persons junior to the petitioner were not retrenched and are still in service.;