YOGENDRA KUMAR Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition out of which this appeal arises was dismissed on the ground that an alternate remedy is available to the writ petitioner/ appellant under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The writ petitioner had come to this Court and contended that there is breach of Section 25- F of the Act, inasmuch as he was not paid retrenchment compensation though he had rendered more than 240 days continuous service in one calendar year. In fact the assertion made in the writ petition is that he had completed more than three years of continuous service.

(2.) THE law is well settled. If a workman has completed more than 240 days of continuous service in one calendar year even with intermittent breaks, then the workman would be entitled to the benefits of Section 25-F of the Act. See the following decisions:-

(3.) IN view of the above legal position the writ petitioner-appellant is right in contending that he is entitled to the benefits of Section 25-F of the Act. As noticed above the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that alternate remedy is available under the Act. Can the appellant be non-suited on this ground? This is the question which further requires to be gone into.