JANHIT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard both sides.

(2.) IN Paragraph No. 13 of the impugned order of the Labour Court there is a categorical specific finding, based on perusal of the muster roll documents produced by the petitioner, that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in each calender year. There is no ground argued before us on the basis of which this pure finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court could be challenged in writ jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the work was not of perennial nature and, therefore if the workman is reinstated there would be no work for him. This concept does not appear to be supported by any law. Admittedly this termination is not at the end of any contracted period of employment. No law has been cited to show that there can be retrenchment without payment of retrenchment compensation, even if the workman has worked for more than 240 days in the previous calender year. Accordingly this petition has no force and the same is dismissed. 2. As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner list after two weeks.

(3.) AS prayed by learned counsel for the respondent Bank a reply may be filed within two weeks. Rejoinder may be filed to the reply of the respondent Bank as well as to the reply of the State within two weeks thereafter. AS prayed list immediately after four weeks.