STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. BHARAT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition is to the order dated 8.4.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act, 1947') whereby, the Labour Court has recorded that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, 1947 has not been complied with and as such retrenchment of the respondent, employee was not legal. Accordingly, retrenchment was declared as illegal and reinstatement with 75% backwages was granted.

(2.) SHRI Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ State submits that for invoking provisions of Section 25-F, the Labour Court ought to have considered the facts asto whether the respondent No.1 had worked for more than 240 days or not in the preceding year or compliance of Section 25B of the Act, 1947 is pre-condition for invoking compliance of Section 25-F.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is found that the Labour Court has recorded statements of one Shri B.R.Khute and other witnesses. B.R.Khute, in his statement has deposed that the petitioner had not worked more than 240 days and in case of muster roll, it was as recorded that only the Ranger posted at that point of time, was in position to state the facts, as he had worked for 240 days. After recording the statement, no finding has been recorded by the Labour Court