OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. GURUNATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Nazirullah, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mrs. C.K. Vishnupriya, learned Additional Government Pleader for the petitioner and perused the records.

(2.) IN this case, the first respondent raised a dispute in I.D.No.203 of 1997 before the second respondent-Labour Court. The claim of the first respondent was that he had worked in a project work at the Lower Bhavani Irrigation areas and the work is of a perennial nature and without any reason whatsoever, his services have been abruptly terminated and as he had put in more than three years of service, he is eligible for confirmation of his service and since before his termination no procedure as contemplated under Section 25-F of the INdustrial Disputes Act was followed, the order of termination is void ab initio.

(3.) IT is not enough to make any pleadings before the Labour Court, but also to let in evidence, both oral and documentary, to substantiate the claim. Otherwise, pleadings will remain only as pleadings without any evidentiary value. But the Labour Court on the basis of the oral evidence let in by the workman and the petitioner not having discharged their obligation, directed the reinstatement with backwages.