STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Exemption as prayed for is granted.

(2.) We have head counsel for the petitioner at some length.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that no muster rolls were being maintained for the relevant period is there was no work. Additionally he contends that the workman had not worked for 240 days in the year immediately preceding the alleged termination of his service. There is apparent contradiction in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. If no muster rolls were being maintained it cannot be understood as to how the State calculates the days for which the workman had worked. However, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Panipat recorded a finding of fact that the workman had worked for 240 days and termination of his services was in violation of provisions of 25-G and 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It may be appropriate to refer to the following finding recorded by the learned Tribunal :