Heard Mr.Premal R. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner. It is submitted by him that in the impugned award, the Labour Court has not rendered any specific finding to the effect that respondent No.1 has completed 240 days of work in the last calender year and only a presumption to this effect has been made. It is further submitted that the petitioner has produced the details of work of respondent No.1 for the last calender year i.e. April-1998 to March-2000 by Exh:35 which shows that he has worked for only 217 days. This aspect has not been considered by the Labour Court while passing the impugned award. It is further submitted that the issue regarding the violation of Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the petitioner Municipality, have been found in the negative. However, the Municipality has been directed to reinstate respondent No.1 with continuity of service.
Issue Rule, returnable on 16.07.2012.
While the direction for reinstatement is not stayed, at this stage, the direction for continuity of service, as issued by the Labour Court in the impugned award, shall remain stayed till then.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.) rakesh/ Top