1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 19.07.2003 passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in reference (LCJ) No. 14/95 on the ground that the Labour Court has wrongly rejected the reference vide its impugned order.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working with the respondent as a Rojamdar Octroi Clerk from April 1993 to 31.08.1994. The respondent orally terminated the service of the petitioner on 31.08.1994. The petitioner therefore filed Reference (LCJ) No. 14/95 before the Labour Court, Junagadh. The Labour Court after hearing the parties rejected the reference. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is preferred.
3. Ms. Vinita Vinayak, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Labour Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that it is upon the workman/employee to prove that the employee has completed 240 days in absence of any documentary evidence in possession of the employee. She further submitted that the petitioner worked continuously from April 1993 to 31.08.1994 and was thereafter orally terminated. She submitted that the documents exhibited vide Ex. 19 to 21 clearly show that the petitioner was in continuous service in the month of June 1994.
4. This Court is unable to accept this submission of Ms Vinayak. The Labour Court has clearly observed that no evidence at all has been produced in support of the contention that the petitioner was in continuous service for a period of more than 240 days. The Labour Court has observed that the workman could not prove by way of any documentary evidence that he has worked continuously for more than 240 days. On the contrary, the documentary evidence adduced by the respondent shows that the petitioner workman has worked only for the period from April 1994 to June 1994. Therefore the Labour Court has rightly rejected the reference.
5. This Court is of the view that the Labour Court order is absolutely just and proper and no interference is called for. The petition therefore deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) DIVYA