URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST ALWAR Vs. KAILASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged the award dated September 25, 1998, passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, by which, termination of services of the respondent No. 1 concerned workman has been held to be illegal and unjustified and he has been ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages.

(2.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record as also the impugned award.

(3.) The concerned workman had worked for about 261 days in the year 1983-84, however, before terminating his services on May 1, 1984, compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act of 1947) was not made. The only plea taken by the petitioner before the Labour Court was that the concerned workman had worked on different sites on daily wages muster roll basis, as such, the period of different sites cannot be clubbed together so as to calculate the number of days for compliance of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947.