The court emphasized the importance of compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act in cases of termination and considered the length of service and nature of employment in determining entitlement to back wages.

S.K. Gangele, J.

1. Because both the petitions, [Writ Petition No. 5167/2005 (S) by the Employee and Writ Petition No. 6285/2006 (S) by the employer] have been filed against a common award dated 8-4-2005 passed in Case No. 11/A/ID Act/ Ref./2002, hence both the petitions are being heard together and decided by this common order.

2. The employee, Ashok Kumar, complained to the Appropriate Government that he was engaged by the Corporation at Dabra Center w.e.f. 6-8-1992 on daily wage basis to perform the work of Clerk. He was not made permanent hence he filed an application before the Labour Court under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act for his classification. The Labour Court granted stay of status quo. In spite of that vide letter dated 31-8-1999 his services were terminated. The matter was ceased in the conciliation and after failure of conciliation proceedings it was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication.

3. Before the Labour Court the employee in his statement of claim stated tha the was engaged as daily wager Clerk w.e.f. 6-8-1992. Because, thereafter he filed an application for classification before the Labour Court under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act hence vide order dated 31-8-1999 his services were terminated. Before termination of services no inquiry was conducted neither any retrenchment compensation was given to him, hence the order of termination was void and contrary to Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

4. The employer in its statement of claim admitted the fact that Mr. Ashok Kumar was engaged on daily wage basis, however, it has been denied by the employer that he had worked continuously. It has further been stated by the employer in Para 23 of the written statement that w.e.f. April, 2002 the center was closed.

5. Before the Labour Court the employee submitted his affidavit in support of his claim and stated same things. On behalf of employer affidavit of Mr. Jagdish Singh Yadav was filed. He stated that the Dabra Process Center was closed and no employee had been working there. It was further admitted in the affidavit that Mr. Ashok Kumar was working on daily wage basis. On 22-7-2004 Regional Manager of the Corporation, Mr. Jagdish Singh Yadav in his cross-examination admitted the fact that no retrenchment compensation was paid to Mr. Ashok Kumar at the time of termination of services vide order dated 31-8-1999. He further admitted that in the Corporation production of various crops and development of high quality seeds was being done and there were so many centers of the Corporation for the aforesaid purpose. The processing of seeds was also done and seeds have been sold through various centers. He further stated that hundreds of employees were working in the Corporation. , Thereafter, on the basis of the above evidence on record, oral and documentary, the Labour Court has held that the services of the workman were terminated because he filed an application before the Labour Court for his classification and he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year continuously from 6-8-1992 to 1999 as per Exhs. P-1 to P-4. The Labour Court further observed that because the center was closed hence the workman will be entitled the retrenchment compensation in accordance with Section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act and passed the award accordingly.

6. The employee alongwith the petition has filed the photostat copies of attendance register and payment of wages to the employee. As per the aforesaid record it is clear that the employee has worked for 147 days in 1992, for 363 days in 1993, for 361 days in 1994, for 363 days in 1995, for 360 days in 1996, for 361 days in 1997, for 362 days in 1998 and 236 days in 1999. The employer has not controverted the aforesaid facts. The copies of the payment register have been filed after obtaining the same from the employer under the Right to Information. Hence, the aforesaid documents cannot be dispute