JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Presiding Officer/Labour Court (U. P.) Agra, in Adjudication Case No. 259 of 1992 dated 14th June, 1996. The State Government vide its order dated 24th July, 1992, referred the following reference for adjudication before the labour court :
^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed Jh eksgEen bLyke iq= Jh c'khj vgen] pijklh dh lsok;sa fnukad 9-3-1991 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk vFkok oS/kkfud gS\ ;fn ugha rks lacaf/kr Jfed fdl [email protected]"[email protected] ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk fdl vU; fooj.k lfgr \**
2. Before the labour court, both the parties have filed written statement, rejoinder-affidavit and adduced the evidence. The case set up by the workman is that he was employed with the employer with effect from September, 1984. His services were arbitrarily terminated on 9th March, 1991. This fact has been denied by the employer. The employer has stated that workman started his service on 3rd July, 1990, his services were not terminated but he absented himself as he got appointment in the J. N. Medical College Hospital, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, as assistant ward boy. Employer produced the relevant material and evidence that workman has been working as assistant ward boy with effect from 9th March, 1991. After considering the respective cases and evidence produced by the parties, labour court has recorded the findings that workman was employed by the employer with effect from 3rd July, 1990 and on 9th March, 1991, he left the job as he already got a job of assistant ward boy where he is still working. Labour court has further recorded the findings that workman has not disputed the aforesaid fact. Workman himself absented and did not come to join the job, employer has not terminated the services and also he has not completed 240 days in the calendar year, thus, he is not entitled for any relief under Sections 6N and 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
3. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the labour court that workman has not completed 240 days in one calendar year and further the workman is not entitled for any relief, is also affirmed.
4. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order/orders shall stand vacated. However, parties shall bear their own costs.