SHYAMLAL Vs. MANAGER ANKUR TALKIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER by Shri Umesh Gajankush, Advocate. He is heard. This Court on 30-10-2009 has admitted the petition for final hearing, but none appeared on behalf of respondent, although he is served.

(2.) BY this petition under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the impugned award dated 22-6-2009 passed by the learned Labour Court in Case No. 08/ID/05/Ref.

(3.) WE have gone through the impugned award passed by learned Labour Court and we find that the evidence led before that Court has not been properly appreciated and marshalled. Further no finding has been arrived at by the learned Labour Court whether the workman has worked continuously for a period of 240 days in a calendar year or not in order to arrive at a finding that whether the W. P. No. 7218(S)/2009 decided on 10-5-2010. (Indore) termination of the services of workman is in contravention to section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not.