GANGADHAR LABLA Vs. P O LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assails the order/award of the Labour Court, Jeypore. Koraput answering the reference made to it by the State Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act against the petitioner-workman.

(2.) The short fact of the petitioner's case was that he was working with Orissa Forest Development Corporation as a mate, which was subsequently redesignated as Field Assistant in its Rayagada Division running under the control of opposite party No. 3. He was appointed on November 10, 1989 and continued upto June 15, 1991, when his services were terminated without assigning any reason, for which an Industrial Dispute was raised before opposite parties 2 and 3. The Conciliation Proceeding having failed, on the basis of the report, the State Government referred the dispute to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act in the following terms:

(3.) Sri S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the finding of the learned Labour Court that the petitioner has not worked for more than 240 days, preceding 12 calendar months from the date of retrenchment is on a misinterpretation and misconception of the provision of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called as "I.D. Act") and as such, the award is illegal. It is his submission that both the parties have admitted that the petitioner had worked since January 10, 1989 to June 15, 1991 and as such, period of 12 months preceding the date of termination has to start from June 15, 1990 and so calculated, the petitioner has worked for 273 days and not 192 days as has been held. It is further contended that in view of the admission of the opposite party-management that the petitioner was offered retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, this obviously would mean that the workman had worked continuously for more than 240 days, for which the compensation had been offered. The finding of the learned Labour Court that the petitioner has not been able to prove that his juniors are continuing in service is on a factual error inasmuch as the onus is on the management to show that no junior is continuing in service. The findings of fact that the petitioner was working as a seasonal worker and since the work had been completed he is not entitled to the benefits of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is challenged on the ground that there is absolutely no evidence that the petitioner was engaged as a seasonal worker by the opposite party-management.