The central legal point established in the judgment is that the termination was considered retrenchment due to non-compliance with the provisions of section 25F, and the activities of the Madhya Pradesh Police Housing Corporation were deemed to come within the purview of industry as defined under section 2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

Rajendra Menon, T.K. Kaushal, JJ.

In W.P. (s) No. 3157/2003 Shri K.S. Wadhwa, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Anoop Shrivastava, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1.

In W.P. (s) No. 2513/2004 Shri Anoop Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Shri K.S. wadhwa, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.

As challenge in both these petitions is made to an award passed by the Labour Court, Bhopal dated 19.9.2003 passed in ID reference case No. 8/97, both these petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the pleadings and material available in the record of W.P. (s) No. 2513/04 is being referred to in this order.

3. Petitioner Shri Sher Singh was working as a daily wages employee in the M.P. Police Housing Corporation. He was initially engaged as a driver on 26.9.1988 and continued to work continuously upto 24.1.1991 when his services are said to be orally terminated.

4. Inter alia contending that termination amounts to retrenchment and the same is brought about without complying with the mandatory provisions of section 25F and an industrial dispute was raised and on failure of the dispute, the matter was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court.

5. On the basis of the material and evidence available on record, the Labour Court found that the termination to be retrenchment and as the condition precedent contemplated u/s 25F was not being complied with, a direction for reinstatement of the petitioner Sher Singh without back wages was given.

6. W.P. (s) No. 2513/04 is filed by Shri Sher Singh challenging the award denying back wages to him and W.P. (s) No. 3157/2003 is filed by M.P. Police Housing Corporation challenging the direction for reinstatement.

7. Shri K.S. Wadhwa appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 in W.P. (s) No. 2513/2004 argued that Shri Sher Singh was only a daily wages employee and as a daily wages employee has no right to continue on the post and his services have been terminated due to non-availability of work, it is stated that the order passed by the Labour Court holding the same to be retrenchment as illegal is not proper. That apart, it is stated by him that the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 does not apply to the police Corporation and, therefore, the reference was illegal. On the aforesaid ground, the award is challenged by the Madhya Pradesh Police Housing Corporation in W.P. (s) No. 3157/2003.

8. As far as the petition filed by Shri Sher Singh is concerned, Shri Anoop Shrivastava argued that once the retrenchment is found to be illegal due to noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of section 25F full pay and back wages should be paid and in not doing so, the Labour Court has committed an error.

9. It is pointed out that the award has been passed in the year 2003 and it is submitted on behalf of the workman Shri Sher Singh that till date, he is neither reinstated nor the benefits have been granted. To the aforesaid contention, Shri Wadhwa points out that the order was passed on 6.4.2004 in which respondent Shri Sher Singh was directed to Join duties at Indore but as he refused to join, therefore, he should not make any grievance.

10. Shri Anoop Shrivastava submits that petitioner is working at Bhopal. His services were brought to an end at Bhopal and he was directed to join at Indore, it is stated that the employer has committed an error in so doing.

11. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records, it is seen that the workman Shri Sher Singh Was in continuous employment with the establishment of Madhya Pradesh Police Housing Corporation from 26.9.1988 upto 24.1.1991. During this period, he had completed 240 days of service in the current year and, therefore, finding him to be in continuous employment for one year and further finding the benefit of section 25F is not granted, the award is passed by the Labour Court.

12. In doing so, we are of the considered view that the labour Court has not committed any error. Once, th