SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Vs. BHARTU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent Nos. 1 to 11 herein were employed as daily rated Baildars on different dates. Their services were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A Reference was made to the Presiding Judge of the Labour Court in the following terms:

(2.) The defence raised by the petitioners before the Labour Court was that the respondents did not complete 240 days preceding to the year when they left the job of their own and therefore Section 25-F of the Act was not applicable.

(3.) The Labour Court after perusal of the record of the petitioners found as fact that the respondents had completed 240 days in the year preceding their termination. This position is not disputed before me. Other plea of the petitioners that respondents abandoned the job of their own by abstaining from the work too was rejected.