Point of law :Labour Law - There is no proof that the workman has worked for 240 days and, therefore, it was held by the Labour Court that there is no proof that the workman was working continuously under Section 25B of the I.D. Act- No need of any issuance of any notice or notice pay or retrenchment allowance and, therefore, there is no breach of Section 25F of the I.D. Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 14, 16, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the following prayers:

A. Be pleased to admit the present Special Civil Application;

B. Be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application by way of issuing appropriate writ, mandamus order or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned award dated 24/04/2006 passed by the Labour Court at Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.1879 of 1995 annexed as Annexure – D by way of holding that the same is illegal, unjust and arbitrary and further be pleased to hold that there is no violation of the provisions of Section 25(g) & (h) of the I.D. Act and hence the respondent herein is not eligible and entitled for any relief.

C. Pending the admission, final hearing and disposal of the present Special Civil Application be pleased to grant interim relief by way of staying the implementation, execution and operation of the award dated 24/04/2006 passed by the Labour Court at Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.1879 of 1995 annexed as Annexure – D.

D. Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as the nature of the case may deem thought fit to pass such order.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the workman - respondent herein was working with the Corporation, petitioner herein on the post of compounder and there was a reference pending before the Labour Court and during the pendency of the reference, the employer has terminated the service of the workman w.e.f. 01.07.1992 on the ground that there is no post vacant of the compounder. It is contended that since the respondent was not reinstated, he approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Assistant Labour Commissioner has initiated conciliation proceedings which is failed, the Assistant Commissioner has made a reference under the I.D. Act to the Labour Court. It is contended that after termination of his service, he tried to get employment, but, he could not find out and he is unemployed. It is also contended that the job of the workman was terminated in nature. On all these grounds he has sought the relief for declaring that the action on the part of the employer in termination his service is illegal one and in directing the employer to reinstate with full back wages and continuity of service.

2.1 The petitioner – Corporation has resisted the claim by filing its reply denying all the averments made by the workman. It was contended that the workman was working as a daily wager and he was provided the work as compounder without following procedure of recruitment between 18.02.1991 to 30.06.1992 depending upon the availability of the work and funds. It is contended that since there was non-availability of the work, the workman was not offered the work w.e.f. 01.07.1992. It is contended that the Labour Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and observation made by the Labour Court regarding the breach of Section 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as the “I.D. Act”.)It is further contended that in another reference being Reference (I.T.) No.322 of 1994, the workman had deposed that he had worked between 1802.1991 to 10.03.1991 for in all 21 days and had never worked w.e.f. 24.04.1990. It is contended that this fact clearly shows that there was no violation of the provision of Section 25G of the I.D. Act. It is also contended that the Labour court has not properly appreciated the fact that one Mr.Abdulkarim A. Soniwala was not a daily wager and, therefore, there was no violation of the provision of Section 25H of the I.D. Act. It is further contended that the Labour Court ought to have considered the fact that there was a delay of three years in raising the reference and there was no explanation of such delay. It is contended that the workman has never worked for 240 days in any of the years in past. On all these grounds, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the impugned award and to allo