SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Vs. CHAVDA CHEGANLAL RATANSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.S.P. Hasurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Pinakin Raval, under the authority of Mr.K.S. Acharya, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner, being aggrieved by the award dtd.16/10/1999 passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference (LCJ) No.821 of 1990 [Old Reference (LCR) No.230 of 1987], is before this Court with a submission that the court below was unjustified in directing reinstatement of respondent workman and further erred in awarding back wages and consequential benefits.

(3.) After taking me through the findings recorded by the learned court below, it was contended by Mr.Hasurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the court below erred in holding rather recording a perverse finding that the workman had worked for a period of 240 days in 12 calender months preceding the date of termination / alleged removal of the respondent. He submitted that in accordance with Sec.25(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act ("the Act"), to come under the definition of continuous service, one has to show that he has worked for 240 days, the respondent has failed in proving that he worked for 240 days, the court below was unjustified in making such a finding.