RAVI R.TRIPATHI, J. - (1.)The petitioner, being aggrieved of the judgement and award dated 25th February, 2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference (LCS) No.323 of 1992, whereby the learned Presiding Officer was pleased to reject the Reference of the petitioner, has approached this Court by way of this petition.
(2.)The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was employed as a daily -wager Chowkidar along with one Ramjibhai Babubhai Valand and Akbarkhan Mohammadkhan. However, the services of the petitioner had been orally terminated on 31st September, 1990 and, therefore, he was constrained to raise a dispute, which is adjudicated by the impugned judgement and award of the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court.
(3.)Mrs. D.T.Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Presiding Officer has committed an error in recording the contradictory findings in the impugned judgement and award and, therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside by this Court. The learned Advocate invited the attention of this Court to the contents of paragraph -6, which is the only paragraph wherein the learned Presiding Officer has dealt with the rival contentions of both the sides. The learned Advocate demonstrated that the learned Presiding Officer has committed a grave error by recording contradictory findings in the said paragraph. For example, it is recorded that, 'while terminating the services of any workman, one month's written notice or in lieu thereof, wages for one month is to be paid. Wages at the rate of 15 days for every completed year of service is also to be paid by way of compensation and besides, any other amount, which is due and payable to a workman, is also to be paid. Such amount is to be paid on the day the services are terminated.' The learned Presiding Officer has then recorded a finding to the effect that, 'the applicant, petitioner, without giving any intimation to the Divisional Office has left the work and, therefore, the amount, which was payable to him, was paid.' These findings are self contradictory inasmuch as if the applicant, petitioner, had left the work without giving any intimation, how any payment could have been made to the applicant, which is not the case of the department even. (emphasis supplied)
3.2 The learned Presiding Officer has then recorded that the applicant -petitioner, in his deposition, at Exh.12, has deposed that he was terminated in the year 1991 and that he does not remember the date. After recording this, the learned Presiding Officer has recorded that, 'thus, the concerned workman was not terminated by the establishment by an oral order and is terminated by a written order' (emphasis supplied). This was not the case of either party before the learned Presiding Officer. Neither the petitioner nor the establishment ever pleaded before the learned Presiding Officer that 'services' were terminated by a written order, still the learned Presiding Officer has recorded a categorical finding that the services of the petitioner were not terminated by an oral order, but, were terminated by a written order.

3.3 The learned Presiding Officer has then recorded that on completion of the work of the establishment and there being no need of the services of the Chowkidar, the petitioner was terminated; that in his place, no new person was appointed; that the concerned workman has not put in continuous service; that he has not completed 240 days in a year; and, that when he was to be terminated, he himself stopped coming to work and this is proved. The learned Presiding Officer, without making reference to any of the oral or documentary evidence, has recorded the aforesaid findings that when the services of the petitioner were to be terminated, he himself stopped coming to work. These findings are contradictory as the earlier findings recorded by the learned Presiding Officer are that, 'the services of the petitioner were not terminated by an oral order, but, were terminated by a written order'. It is important to note that both these findings are not only self contradictory, but, are also de hors the record. If it is accepted that the services of the petitioner were terminated by a written order, it cannot be said that when the services of the petitioner were about to be terminated, the petitioner stopped coming to work.

3.4 The learned Presiding Officer has next recorded a finding to the effect that, 'thus, the act of the establishment of terminating the services of the petitioner by an oral order as there was no work, is illegal'. Thereafter, the learned Presiding Officer has recorded that, 'the establishment has not committed breach of any of the Sections of the I.D.Act' (emphasis supplied). Besides, from reading of the judgement and award of the learned Presiding Officer, it is clear that the learned Presiding Officer is not mindful of the provisions of Sections 25(G) and 25(H) of the I.D. Act, 1947 ("the Act" for short), which read as under: "25 -G. Procedure for retrenchment. - - - Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman. 25 -H Re -employment of retrenched workmen. - - - Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employment any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re -employment, and such retrenched workmen who offer themselves for re -employment shall have preference over other persons."