STATE OF HARYANA Vs. CHET RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH there is a written request by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 for adjournment, it is stated by her that she withdraws her request. Both the counsel are ready to argue file case. They state that record is not necessary. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE employer being dissatisfied with the award of the Labour Court dated 3.12.1999 (copy annexure P/6) has filed this writ petition, challenging the same. By this award, respondent No. 1 was ordered to be reinstated in service with back wages to the tune of 10 percent. The challenge to the award is on two counts:

(3.) REGARDING the first point, the Labour Court had held that from the written statement filed before it, the respondent could be said to have competed 240 days. The petitioner also along with writ petition has filed 3 statement at annexure P/1. It mentions the working days from 1.7.1994 to 31.12.1994. Admittedly the respondent has also worked for the month of March and June 1995 before he was terminated. The total working days from 1.7.1994 to 31.12.1994 as per annexure P/1 would come to 183. In addition, as it is not in dispute that the respondent also worked in the months of March and June, 1995. 61 days can be said to have been the working days in the year 1995 upto 30.6.1995. The total working days upto 30.6.95 would come to 244. This being the position, the respondent has already completed 240 days of service and it cannot be said that the finding of the Labour Court on this point can be interfered with.