DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, FOREST DEPARTMENT Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER-INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 20th May, 2005 (Annexure P -3) passed by the Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, - -vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding her entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and other consequential benefits alongwith 50% back wages from the date of issuance of the demand notice.

(2.) COUNSEL for the Petitioner contends that the learned Labour Court has totally overlooked the provisions of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act"). It has in its finding clearly held that the workman has worked for less than 240 days during the last 12 preceding months from the date of her termination but still she has been held entitled to benefit of Section 25 -F of the Act of the ground that the workman had in earlier years of her service completed more than 240 days.

(3.) COUNSEL for Respondent No. 2, on the basis of this, contends that the question, which was under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohal Lal's case was only whether the workman, who had worked for merely 10 months with the employer and, therefore, the deeming fiction of Section 25 -B of the Act would be attracted in these circumstances that Court has held that the relevant date for taking into consideration 240 days as per this provision, would be the date of termination. He therefore, contends that the Court should not take into consideration only the 12 preceding calendar months before the date of termination but it has to be taken into consideration the earlier years as well and the benefit of 240 days, which the workman has worked in earlier years, would entitle her to the benefit to Section 25 -F of the Act. He further relies upon a Single Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Suraj Pal Singh and Ors. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. III and Anr., 2002 LAB.. I.C. 2897 wherein the High Court has held that the period under Section 25 -B read with Section 25 -F of the Act cannot be restricted to immediately preceding calendar year if the employee has worked for 240 days in any calendar year preceding his termination, the employee would be entitled to the benefit of Section 25 -F of the Act.