AJIT SINGH Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first round of litigation in reference No.32 of 2000 under Section10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for brevity, "the ID Act"] resulted in a remand order passed by this Court on May 17, 2010 in CWP No.880 of 2010 titled Ajit Singh v. Divisional Forest Officer, Aravali Project and another. This Court faulted the award which had declined reference vide award dated August 5, 2008. No finding was returned by the previous labour court whether the petitioner had completed 240 days of service in the 12 preceding months from the date of termination or not. This question was raised by Mr.Ashwani Bakshi learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in CWP No.880 of 2010 persuading the court that the question had to be answered in order to decide the rights of the workman as to whether he would be entitled to some compensation or not on account of illegal termination and the finding on that aspect would be essential.

(2.) The argument was accepted and the Labour Court was directed to make a fresh award in accordance with the law. It may be noted that the Labour Court had restricted its examination to the question of exception in Section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D. Act and the case the court thought fell in the arena of contractual employment and thus the petitioner was not covered by the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. These reasons were not found good by this Court in the order dated May 17, 2010.

(3.) In the fresh order passed on remand, the Labour Court has again dismissed the reference and has held on facts that the petitioner had not completed 240 days of continuous and uninterrupted service in any of the years involved and, therefore, he does not possess industrial rights to maintain an action for reinstatement and the consequential benefits flowing from illegal retrenchment.