By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgement and award dated 20.4.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara, in Reference (LCV) No. 7 of 2001 (Old No. 564 of 1988) whereby the Labour Court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 75 per cent backwages. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent was appointed as a casual worker on temporary basis on 1.6.1986. As casual work was not available with the petitioner Company, the respondent was relieved from 29.10.1986. Thereafter, he requested the petitioner to issue a service certificate that he had worked as a casual worker and upon his request, Service Certificate was issued to him on 20.5.1987.
3. After some time, the respondent approached the petitioner and demanded to reinstate him in service as he was illegally terminated. The petitioner did not accede to the demand of the respondent. Therefore, he raised a dispute which could not be settled and failure report was made by the Conciliation Officer. Consequently, appropriate Government made an order of Reference on 6.7.1988 referring the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. The respondent filed statement of claim which was resisted by the petitioner by filing written statement. The petitioner denied the allegations made by the respondent in the statement of claim.
4. The Labour Court after considering the submissions made by the parties and the evidence on record, passed the award as aforesaid. Hence the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court has committed error in directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service in view of the fact that the respondent was appointed as casual worker on temporary basis on 1.6.1986 and he has worked upto 29.10.1986. Since work was not available, he was relieved from service from 30.10.1986. Subsequently, he got other job. Thereafter, he preferred Reference in the year 1988 raising a dispute. Admittedly, the respondent has stated that he was engaged as a casual worker and he worked as such from 1.6.1986 to 29.10.1986 and upon his request for a service certificate since he has got another job, petitioner issued service certificate to him on 20.5.1987. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court has committed error in allowing the Reference and granting reinstatement with 75 per cent backwages. The respondent has not worked either for one year or 240 days. Therefore, there is no question of breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act which reads as under:
“Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen – No workmen employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until -
(a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice”
Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contended that the findings arrived at by the Labour Court are contrary to the evidence on record and require to be quashed and set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Labour Court has passed the order in light of the advertisement issued by the respondent that there was permanent and vacant post and pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.5.1986 the respondent was interviewed and appointment was made by the petitioner. Therefore, he supported the order of the Labour Court and contended that the findings arrived at by the Labour Court are just and proper and this Court may not interfere with the same.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. From the evidence, it is clear that the workman has not worked for 240 days in a year. The employee was employed only for four months. Therefore, there is no question of breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The employee was appointed as a casual worker. Therefore, the respondent has miserably failed to point out that he has worked for 240 days in a year. In that view of the matter, the finding arrived at by the Labour Court is contrary to the evidence on record.
8. In light of the above facts, the order of the Labour Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and the same is set aside accordingly. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (pkn)