The requirement for continuous service under the Industrial Disputes Act includes clear definitions for interrupted service but mandates proof of 240 days of service within the preceding 12 months, which the petitioner failed to establish.

JUDGMENT :

M.K. THAKKER, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Ms.Dixa Pandya waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.

2. The present petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court No. 2, Ahmedabad, in Reference (T) No. 655 of 2015, whereby the reference filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish continuity of service as required under Section 25(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as the “ID Act”).

3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Peon on a daily wage basis in the office of the Deputy Conservator of Forests at Gandhinagar with effect from 21.01.2012. He was paid wages at the rate of Rs.286 per day. By a notice dated 19.11.2014, and in compliance with the provisions of Section 25(f) of the ID Act, his services were terminated after payment of notice pay and retrenchment compensation. Subsequently, on 18.02.2015, the petitioner was re-employed by the respondent and resumed duty as per the joining report dated 02.03.2015. However, another termination notice dated 23.06.2015 was issued, ending the petitioner’s services with effect from 23.07.2015. Aggrieved by this action of the respondent authority, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the learned Labour Court, seeking reinstatement with effect from 23.07.2015. The learned Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record, passed an award against the petitioner by rejecting the reference, which is now under challenge before this Court.

4. Heard learned advocate Ms.Vidhi Bhatt for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms.Dixa Pandya for the respondent-State.

5. Learned advocate Ms. Bhatt submits that, as per the Government Resolution dated 15.09.2015, daily wage workers become eligible and qualified for the benefits of regularization upon completion of five years of service in terms of the earlier G.R. dated 17.10.1988. She further submits that the respondent authority had engaged employees through an outsourcing agency and, although the petitioner had completed three years of service, his services were discontinued by notice dated 19.11.2014. At the relevant point in time, the provisions of Section 25(g) of the ID Act were not complied with by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, and there was also a violation of Section 25(h) of the ID Act. Learned advocate Ms. Bhatt submits that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the learned Conciliation Officer, and a reference was accordingly made. During the pendency of the dispute, a settlement was arrived at between the parties, and the petitioner was reinstated in service vide communication dated 18.02.2015. However, within a short span of four months, his services were again discontinued, in violation of Sections 25(f), 25(g), and 25(h) of the ID Act. Learned advocate Ms.Bhatt submits that the termination was ostensibly on the ground of non-availability of work, but the record indicates that work was being carried out through an outsourcing agency. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have been reinstated, as the mandatory provisions of the ID Act were violated. However, the Labour Court overlooked these aspects and erroneously rejected the reference. Learned advocate Ms.Bhatt submits that similarly situated employees, whose services were also terminated, had raised disputes before the Labour Court, and settlements were arrived at in light of the G.R. dated 06.04.2016, pursuant to which they were reinstated. Relying on the communication dated 15.05.2018, whereby those employees were direct