GUDSINGH Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-workman challenging the award dt. 23rd December, 2016, whereby the termination of services of the petitioner vide order dt.lst September, 1992 has been found to be legal and the petitioner-workman has not been found to complete 240 days before termination of his services.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Baildar on 1st November, 1991 and he had continuously been working till termination of his service on 1st September, 1992 without compliance of provisions of Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act of 1947'). The petitioner has pleaded in his petition that his working from 1st November, 1991 to 1st September, 1992 clearly proved that he had completed 240 days in the preceding calendar year but his services were terminated without paying compensation and no seniority list was published on the Notice Board and as such provision of Section 25G of the Act of 1947, was also violated.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the application dt.9th February, 2005 which was filed before the Labour Court, wherein request was made to summon the documents which were in power and possession of the employer and as such muster roll from 1st November, 1991 to 31st August, 1992 and muster receipts/duty register, were sought to be summoned.