ORAL ORDER

1. Amendment is allowed and it is deemed to be incorporated.

2. By the present Special Civil Application, the petitioners impugn the award dated 28.08.2024 passed in the Reference (T) No.40 of 2017 by the learned Labour Court, Godhra.

3. The learned AGP Ms. Rajvi Shah appearing for the petitioners submits that in the present case, the respondent No.1 workman has not worked continuously for 240 days in each year for five years as per the attendance-sheet. It is submitted that the respondent workman was not a permanent employee and he was not working on a sanctioned post. He was providing his service as a daily wager. She submits that such daily wagers have no vested right of regularization. She further submits that it is the case of the respondent workman that he has been illegally terminated on 31.12.2013. However, the dispute has been raised by the respondent workman after a period of four years in the year 2017. She submits that the learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent workman has not been able to prove his case before the learned Labour Court and therefore, the impugned award is liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel Mr. Dipak R. Dave appearing for the respondent No.1 workman submits that the respondent workman has worked with the petitioners from 01.01.1996 till 31.12.2013 continuously for a period of 17 years. He submits that the respondent workman was illegally terminated after such long period of service. He submits that the learned Labour Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the respondent workman has worked continuously from 01.05.1997 till 30.04.2012. He submits that the said finding is based on the evidence produced by the petitioners on record. He submits that no interference is called for.

5. Heard the learned counsels for the parties, considered the submissions and perused the documents on record.

6. It is the case of the respondent workman that he had joined the service of the petitioners on 01.01.1996 as a watchman on a monthly pay of Rs.4500/-. It is the further case of the respondent workman that he had continuously worked for the petitioners till 31.12.2013. In the present case, the petitioners have produced on record the attendance details in respect of the respondent workman in the Labour Court. A perusal of the same shows that the respondent workman had worked from 01.05.1997 till 30.04.2012 for 240 days and more continuously. For few years, wherein the respondent workman has worked for less than 240 days, the learned Labour Court has held that such service has to be treated as continuous service in terms of Section 25B(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Labour Court has partly allowed the reference and held that the oral termination of the respondent workman was illegal and in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, the respondent workman is directed to be reinstated in service without any back-wages and other benefits. The findings so recorded by the learned Labour Court are based on the evidence on record as produced by the petitioner itself. The cogent reasons have been assigned by the learned Labour Court to the findings so recorded in the impugned award. No interference is called for.

7. The Special Civil Application is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.