CHANDRA PRAKASH Vs. STATE & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated 10.4.2002 passed by Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur whereby the Labour Court answered the reference made by the appropriate Government against the petitioner workman and held that there is no illegality in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 15.2.1994 because he has failed to prove before the Court that he has completed 240 days in one calendar year.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the award impugned is illegal because the petitioner was appointed on the post of Mate w.e.f. 1.1.1987 and worked upto 15.2.1994 but before terminating his services, no notice or compensation as provided under Section 25-F of the ID Act was given to him but in the reply filed by the respondents, it is submitted that the services of the petitioner were not terminated, more so, he himself stopped to work in the Office and later on raised the industrial dispute, therefore, there is no question of applicability of Section 25-F of the ID Act but above reply is not correct because in support of his claim, the petitioner workman filed his own affidavit and affidavit of Varda and on behalf of the respondent Department, affidavit of Jai Singh Arora, Assistant Engineer was filed but no documentary evidence was filed by the respondent Department. The Labour Court decided the industrial dispute referred by the appropriate Government vide notification dated 6.9.1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that muster rolls were not produced by the respondent department although payment of salary was paid through muster rolls.

(3.) According to petitioner, an application was filed to summon entire muster rolls, therefore, the respondent department was under obligation to produce all the muster rolls and pay vouchers but not produced, therefore, presumption may be drawn that the petitioner workman completed 240 days.