ISHWARLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant.

(2.) THE appellant has raised an Industrial dispute about his alleged termination of service from February, 1992. He was working as daily rated workman since 1.4.1991. His wages were Rs. 22/ - per day. Initial orders of appointment were in writing. However after November, 1991 to February, 1992 no written orders were there and he was asked verbally to work. The services were also terminated verbally from March, 1992 without following the procedure required for retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. He has completed continuous service of one year within the meaning of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and he was entitled to benefit of protective provisions governing the valid retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondents in their reply to the claim admitted that the workman has worked as daily rated for 183 days from 1.4.1991 to 30.9.1991 and thereafter he had voluntarily left his services and did not work until February, 1992 as alleged. The allegations of verbal engagement and verbal terminations were denied and case of voluntary abandonment was pleaded. Thus the claim for actual working for 240 days in twelve, calendar months immediately preceding the alleged date of retrenchment was not accepted.

(3.) IN the totality of circumstances we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that it is not a case in which Court ought to interfere with the award of Tribunal by way of judicial review in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.