G M HARYANA ROADWAYS Vs. JAI BHAGWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First respondent was appointed as a Driver on daily wages by the appellant roadways. He was a casual employee. He was being paid wages at the rate fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak.

(2.) Indisputably, he was continuously working from 4-8-1995. Allegedly, he aban doned the service. First Respondents contention, however, is that his services were illegally terminated.

(3.) First respondent filed an application under Section 2A of the Industrial Dis putes Act, 1947 praying for his reinstatement with full back wages along with con tinuity of service and other statutory benefits. The said application was allowed by the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, appellant did not adduce any evidence to establish to its contention that workman himself had left his job. Apart from the fact that he was found to be working for more than 240 days during the period of 12 months preceding the date of his termi nation and furthermore as admittedly the mandatory requirements of Section 25F of the Act had not been complied with, the learned Labour Court also found that some drivers who were junior to him had been retained in service in violation of the pro visions of Section 25G of the Act. It was, therefore, directed that the respondent be reinstated on his previous post with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of service of the notice of demand.