Point of Law: In absence of any evidence produced by the petitioner workman establishing that he had worked under the Respondent continuously for 240 days and, coupled with the fact that the industrial dispute has been raised after a considerable delay without keeping the dispute alive; this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the award. Hence, the same does not require any interference.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing and setting aside the award dated 14.03.2019 passed by Presiding officer, Labour Court, Court No.2, Jamnagar in Reference (T) No.18 of 2011.

2. Learned advocate Mr.U.T.Mishra appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned award is required to be quashed and set aside since there is a delay in raising the industrial dispute and the Labour Court has fallen in error in not appreciating the fact that the termination of the workman was in violation of the provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the ID Act”). It is submitted that since there is an absolute violation of such provisions, the Labour Court could not have rejected the reference on the ground of delay. While placing reliance on the written statement filed by the workman, he has submitted that the same would reveal that the respondent-University had outsourced the work to other agency and hence, instead of employed the present petitioner, the another workman was employed and since there is violation of the provisions of Section 25G of the ID Act, the question of delay would not arise. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajaib Singh vs. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-Cum- Processing Service Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82, the decision of the Coordinate Bench dated 24.10.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.20706 of 2018 and allied matters and the decision of the Division Bench dated 13.03.2019 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1554 of 2018. Thus, he has submitted that there is absolute violation of the aforesaid provisions and the reference cannot be rejected on the ground of delay.

3. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.D.G.Shukla appearing for the respondent-University has submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged on part time basis initially and thereafter on daily wage basis for about four months when the casual work was available and since the work was not available the contract with the petitioner was not extended after 01.05.2002. He has submitted that the petitioner has falsely raised industrial dispute in 2011 stating that he has been orally terminated from the services with effect from 01.01.2004 and the same industrial dispute came to be referred and accordingly, the petitioner has falsely submitted in his written statement of claim dated 08.08.2011 that he has been orally terminated from service with effect from 01.01.2004. It is submitted that the petitioner-workman in his cross-examination admitted that he was initially given appointment for three months only and there is no evidence produced by him that he had worked from 2004. He has submitted that the respondent-University had also submitted the Attendance Register for the years 1999 to 2002 from which, it is evident that the petitioner had never worked for 240 days in a year.

4. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Shukla, while placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar vs. Joint Director Sericulture Department, AIR 2016 SC 2984, that the reference itself is not maintainable after so many years. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttarakhand vs. Sureshwati, AIR 2021 SC 923 for proposition of law that it was for the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days.

5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and the relevant documents, as pointed out by them, are also perused.

6. The statement of claim of the workman reveals that he has specifically stated that he was orally terminated on 01.01.2004 and on 19.01.2011, a notice by Registered Post A.D. raising the demand given by him. It is also stated by him that the respondent-University has engaged some workers by outsourcing after he has been retrenched from service and