SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT PANCHAYAT Vs. DAHYABHAI AMARSINH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court confirming the order of the single Judge and that of the Industrial Tribunal whereby the appellant was directed to reinstate the respondent. The brief facts of the case are that the services of the respondent was terminated by an order dated 15-8-1985. On 1-6-1992, i.e., nearly after 7 years the respondent sent a Demand Notice to the appellant and ultimately the dispute of termination of service of Respondent was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The respondent filed a claim petition alleging therein that he was in service of the appellant for more than ten years at the wages of Rs.10/- per day till he had been terminated by an order dated 5-7-1985. It is alleged that before the order of termination was issued, provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act were not complied with. An application was moved before the Labour Court for direction to the employer-appellant to produce muster roll, salary register from the year 1976 to 1986. The appellant entered appearance and filed its counter alleging that the respondent himself stopped coming to work; that there was a gross delay of seven years in raising the dispute. The workman was never engaged permanently and he was employed for miscellaneous work i.e. whenever there was work, he was called for it. It is alleged that the workman had not completed 240 days of continuous service in the 12 months preceding the date of termination of his services. He had worked for 114 days in the year 1982, 63 days in 1983, 124 days in 1984 and 64 days in 1985 and thus there was no necessity for complying with legal requirement, before terminating the service of the respondent, of following the procedure laid down in Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) The respondent examined himself and deposed that he was employed for 10 years at the salary of Rs. 470 per month whereas Mr. Vinod Misra, an official from the appellant side was examined to show that the workman never worked for 240 days in a year.