(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order of termination dated December 1,1989 and sought a mandate to respondent No. 2 to re-employ him as enjoined by Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, (for short the Act) in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) BRIEF facts :-The petitioner was appointed on daily wages as a Helper on April 21, 1989. He continue in service till August 31, 1989, when his services were terminated. He was again taken in service on September 12, 1989, but the services were dispensed with on September 30, 1989. He was again appointed as helper with effect from 2-11-1989 to 30-11-1989. He maintains that the persons junior to him, namely, Karambir, Surinder Kumar, Narinder Kamar, Rameshwar and Rambir Singh are continuing in service while his services have been terminated and after terminating his services, respondent No. 2 gave fresh appointment to the following :-1. Hasan Mohamand s/o Sh. Bakshi Kha 2. Nafey Singh s/o Sh. Balbir Singh
(3.) BED Pal s/o Shi. Tej Ram. The petitioner has stated that he has completed 181 days in the service of respondent No. 2 Termination has been made in violation of Sections 25-B and 25-H of the Act. 3. Respondent No. 2 did not controvert that the persons junior to the petitioner have been retained in service but pleaded that they have been working on daily wages in the workshop and their services will be discontinued when not required. It was admitted that after the order of termination of the services of petitioner was passed, three more parsons were appointed Respondent No. 2. however, defended his act on the ground that as the petitioner had rendered less than 240 days service preceding she filing of the petition so respondent No. 2 was fully competent to terminate his service.------------ -. The provision, of Section 25-F was not applicable since the petitioner had only remained in service for 181 days and his discontinuation from service did not amount to retrenchment as defined Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act.