Termination without proper compliance with statutory requirements leads to reinstatement and back wages for unjustly terminated workers.

ORDER :

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-workman with a challenge to the award dated 02.08.2008 passed by the learned Labour Court, Kota in LCR No.46/98 whereby, statement of claim filed by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not worked for required 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months under the respondent-employer.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings of the learned Labour Court as regards not working with the respondent-employer continuously for 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months of the alleged termination of the services w.e.f. 01.03.1996 is wholly arbitrary and contrary to the facts on record. He further submits that the petitioner was engaged by the respondent-employer as a Pump Driver w.e.f. 08.01.1995 and he worked continuously under the respondent-employer till his verbal termination made on 01.03.1996. He further submits that Up- sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bada Naya Gaon, Panchayat Samiti Hindoli, District Bundi vide order dated 03.02.1996 (Ex.-5) has categorically given a certificate that the petitioner-workman was doing job of Pump Driver from the month of January, 1995. He has also certified satisfactory services of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel also submits that in the affidavit submitted on behalf of the petitioner-workman, he has categorically stated that he was engaged on 08.01.1995 and his services were terminated w.e.f. 01.03.1996 and the said facts remained uncontroverted in the cross-examination also. He further submits that Charan Singh S/o Chhote Lal, the Assistant Engineer of PHED Department posted at Nainwa, District Bundi in his affidavit has admitted this fact that the petitioner was engaged by him under the Rural Water Scheme in the month of July, 1995 and worked upto month of January, 1996 i.e. total 7 months.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted and annexed the documents as Annexure-7, 8 and 9 (Ex.-19, 20 & 21 respectively) which show the fact that the petitioner has worked under the respondent-employer in the month of February, 1996 also. He further submits that even if the period admitted by the witness of the respondent-employer and the period of month of February which is proved by the documents is taken into consideration then also the petitioner has completed more than 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months before termination. Hence, finding of the learned Labour Court as regards non-completion of 240 days is arbitrary and perverse.

5. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the Industrial Disputes Act and the fact that the petitioner has been able to prove that he has worked under the respondent-employer for a period of 240 days continuously in the 12 preceding calendar months before termination, his termination deserves to be declared unjustified and illegal and the petitioner deserves to be reinstated in service.

6. Learned counsel also submits that during pendency of the proceeding before the learned Labour Court, the petitioner has also moved an application before the learned Labour Court for summoning the record from the respondent-employer as regards working of the petitioner but the respondents did not care to submit the record as regards working of the petitioner and in such circumstances, presumption is to be drawn against the respondent-employer.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-employer, on the other hand, submits that the finding of the learned Labour Court is just and proper as the petitioner-workman