JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a Medical College in the private sector. The 2nd respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute against the petitioner alleging illegal termination of his employment. The dispute was referred for adjudication by the Labour Court, Kollam as I.D. No. 42/2011. 2.The case of the workman is that he was a security guard appointed by the management at Dr.Somerveli Memorial C.S.I. Medical College on 01.05.2003 initially on contract basis. The order of appointment was given by the management fixing the terms and conditions of service. While so, on 03.01.2005, he was employed on daily wage basis. Later, from 03.01.2006 onwards, he began to work as permanent employee at the Medical College. He was made a member in the E.P.F. Scheme provided by the management with E.P.F Code KR/TVM./ 16743/533 from March, 2008 onwards. On 12.04.2009, the workman availed leave in connection with Easter. On the next day when he reported for duty, he was prevented from joining duty. Thus, he was denied of employment. No written order was served by the management on the workman terminating his service. Later, he received a slip acknowledging payment of his P.F. fund from the management in which there was a scribbling to the effect that the management has removed him from service. The workman has challenged the denial of employment before the Labour Court; but did not claim reinstatement as he had attained the age of superannuation. He claimed compensation of Rs.14,10,000/- from the management.

3.The contention of the management is that although the workman was their employee, he was not appointed on the basis of any order and was appointed on daily wage basis according to the necessity when the regular security guard was absent and such security guards engaged on daily wage basis are not in the regular establishment of the management. The workman was neither appointed on 01.05.2003 nor made permanent on 03.01.2006. He commenced his work as a daily wage security guard in the year 2008 only. Though the management admits that the worker was made a member of the E.P.F. Scheme, that does not confer any regular status of employee to the workman. The workman voluntarily abandoned the work and the management is not responsible for the same.

4. On consideration of facts and evidence, the Labour Court, by Ext.P4 award, held that the management denied employment to the workman without any reason and set aside the termination of service of the workman. As the workman had attained the age of superannuation, the Labour Court held that the workman is entitled to get full back wages with attendant monetary benefits from the management from 13.04.2009 till the date of superannuation. The management was also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) as compensation for illegal termination of the workman under Section

11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' , for short).

5. The petitioner contends that Ext.P4 award is vitiated by non-

application of mind apparent on the face of the award and the Labour Court failed to hold that the workman was not terminated from service; but had abandoned the work. There is no justification in granting the benefit of full back wages and compensation, in addition to the back wages.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the second respondent.

7. The main contention of Smt. A.K. Preetha, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the ingredients to attract the provisions of Section 25F of the Act are not proved by the workman. The Labour Court granted the benefits for mere asking and out of sympathy. Going by the case of the workman, the date of termination from service is 12.04.2009. There is no evidence to show that he had worked continuously for 240 days prior to 12.04.2009 to get the protection of Section 25F of the Act. The burden to prove that he had worked continuously for 240 days in twelve months preceding the alleged date of termi