Termination of service of an employee who has worked for more than 240 days in a period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of termination of his service is considered "retrenchment" under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the employer is required to give him notice and retrenchment compensation.

1. - Award dated July 23, 1993 passed by the Labour Court, Rajasthan, Jaipur, in Case No. LCR 413 of 1989 has been challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner has prayed that the said award be quashed and set aside.

2. The facts of the case are that respondent No. 1, Babu Lal Sharma, was appointed as driver in the service of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. on August 23, 1986. His service was terminated on January 8, 1987. He was again appointed as driver on daily wages basis with effect from May 11, 1987. Once again his service was terminated on April 19, 1988. A dispute was raised by the transport workers' union against the termination of service of respondent workman. When the parties failed to arrive at a settlement. Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report to the Government. Thereafter, the Government issued notification dated October 26, 1989 in exercise of its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and made a reference of the dispute to the Labour Court, Jaipur. It was pleaded on behalf of the workman that he had completed more than 240 days of work in a period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of termination of his service and that before bringing about an end of the service of the workman, provisions of Section 25F of 1947 Act as well as Rules 77 and 78 had not been complied with. Another plea raised on behalf of the workman related to violation of Section 25N of 1947 Act. The employer contested the claim made on behalf of the workman by alleging that the workman had not served regularly between August 23, 1987 to April 19, 1988. His service had been terminated because he was rendered surplus. Babu Lal examined himself and stated before the Labour Court that he had served for more than 240 days in a period of 12 months during the year 1986-87. Shri R.K.S. Jodha appeared on behalf of the employer and stated that the workman had worked for less than 240 days and that for this reason notice and retrenchment compensation had not been given to him. After taking into consideration the rival pleadings of the parties and the evidence, the Labour Court held that the workman had proved the factum of his having worked for a period of 240 days in a period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of termination of his service and that the provisions of Section 25F were violated by the employer. The Labour Court rejected the plea raised on behalf of the employer that termination of service of the petitioner did not fall within the ambit of the term "retrenchment" under Section 2(oo) of the 1947 Act. The Labour Court held that the work against which the workman had been engaged had been continuing and the Corporation had not been closed. It also rejected the plea of the employer that the employees had no right to represent the workman (sic) and that the workman was not entitled to back wages.

3. In support of the writ petition, Shri Manish Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the finding recorded by the Labour Court regarding the workman having worked for more than 240 days in a period of 12 months is factually incorrect. Shri Bhandari submitted that the workman had in fact worked for 234 days in a period of 12 months. According to Shri Bhandari, the Labour Court has ignored the statement filed before it by the employer. This argument of Shri Bhandari cannot be accepted for various reasons which are set out hereunder: In the statement of claim submitted on behalf of the workman it was specifically pleaded that the workman had worked under the employer for a period of more than 240 days in one calendar year. To this, the employer replied by a bald assertion that the statement made in the claim petition was incorrect. No specific denial of the workman having served for more than 240 days was made by the employer. Shri R.K.S. Jodha, who appeared as a witness on behalf of the employer, has admitted that the workman had served between M