EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PHED Vs. MANOJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Anil Bhandari for the petitioners and Mr. Sachin Arya for the respondents.

(2.) THIS petition challenges an award passed by the Labour Court. The petitioners, did not appear before the Labour Court, after once entering appearance, and as a result the proceedings were taken ex parte against the petitioners and award was also passed ex parte.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on his own saying the respondent employee had not completed 240 days of working in a year and, therefore, benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 could not have been given to him. The learned counsel submitted that in paragraph 10 of the award, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has found that the respondent employee was paid for 26 days each in the months of May 1992, June 1992, July 1992, August 1992 and September 1992. According to the learned counsel, on calculation of the actual working days put in by the respondent employee, he has not completed 240 days of actual working. The learned counsel submitted that for purposes of Sub-section (2) of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, actual working days should mean the days on which the workman physically attended and worked.