S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by award dated 23.12.2011 in Reference Case No. 33 of 2005 whereby, reference has been answered in negative, the present writ petition has been filed. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was employed between the period March, 1987 to January, 1992 and when the management of Swarnrekha Project, Chandil did not pay wages to the petitioner, he filed application under Sec. 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act which was registered as M.J. Case No. 29 of 1992. Vide order dated 27.9.1996 a direction was issued to the opposite party to pay Rs. 16,348.30 on account of wages to the petitioner for the period between March, 1987 to March, 1990. Thereafter, petitioner's service was terminated and an industrial dispute was raised which after conciliation proceeding failed, was referred to the appropriate Government. The appropriate Government vide order dated 5.10.2005 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Jamshedpur. Finally, the reference has been answered against the workman. Aggrieved the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not in dispute that the petitioner worked between March, 1987 to March, 1990 and he completed 240 days and thus, the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the petitioner did not continuously work for 240 days preceding the date of his termination, is factually incorrect. It is contended that without complying with the conditions under Sec. 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, termination of the petitioner from service was illegal and therefore, the petitioner was entitled for reinstatement in service. It is further submitted that, the management did not adduce evidence orally or documentary however, merely on the ground that the workman failed to establish that he worked between the period March, 1990 to January, 1992, the reference has been answered in negative. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on decision in "Director, Fisheries Terminal Department vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda" : (2010) 1 SCC 47.;