VINODKUMAR DANABHAI SOLANKI Vs. INFORMATION ASSISTANT AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned judgement and award dated 26.9.2003 passed by the Labour Court whereby the Labour Court has rejected the Reference on the ground that the petitioner has not completed 240 days.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as cleaner -cum -peon on vacant post on 9.6.1988. He was terminated orally without giving any notice or notice pay. Industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner which culminated in Reference (LCK) No. 264 of 1991. The Labour Court rejected the Reference as aforesaid. Hence the petitioner before this Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of WORKMEN OF AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION VS. MANAGEMENT OF AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION, 1986 AIR(SC) 458, contended that holiday is required to be taken into consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of WORKMEN OF AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION VS. MANAGEMENT OF AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION , the Labour Court has committed error in not considering Section 25B(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. She also submitted that the Labour Court wrongly observed that there is no breach of Section 25F of the I.D. Act