RAJENDRA PRASAD MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri P. K. Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Agarwal holding brief of Sri N. Das, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

(2.) THE services of the petitioner was terminated. A dispute was raised before the industrial Tribunal with regard to the validity and legality of the order of termination dated september 28, 1999. The Industrial Tribunal in its award found that the order of termination of the services of the workman was legal and that the management was justified in terminating the services of the workman. The Tribunal consequently declined to grant any relief to the workman. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) A perusal of the award indicates that a stand was taken by the workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calender year and therefore, he was entitled for retrenchment compensation which admittedly was not paid to him. The Tribunal found that the workman was unable to prove that he had completed 240 days of continuous service in a calender year and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for retrenchment compensation.