SATYAPAL Vs. JUDGE, LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is true that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not ordinarily interfere with the award passed by the labour Court as the jurisdiction with regard to interference is limited to the extent of examining perversity. If a finding of fact has been arrived at, this Court would not interfere with such finding unless the findings are based on complete misreading of documents which is apparent on record.

(2.) In the present award, while counting the period of service rendered by the workman of immediate preceding year, the labour Court noted that the workman had been terminated from service on 6.1.1989. Having noted so while calculating the previous calendar year service, the period of service rendered by the workman from August 1988 to January 1989 was not counted, although it was noted by the labour Court in para 6. It is an admitted position that at Jaipur the workman worked from 1.3.1988 to 30.07.1988 at Jaipur (Jhotwada) and from August 1989 to January 1989 at Jaipur (South) Office. Thus, he has apparently worked for more than 240 days. However, a finding was arrived at that the petitioner-workman did not work for 240 days. It is also to be noted that the workman was working since 21.11.1986 continuously with the respondents at different Offices and in terms of Section 25(F)(B)(1) of the Act of 1947 period of service has to be counted as continuous and uninterrupted and, therefore, on account of non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 his termination from service w.e.f. 6.1.1989 has to be declared illegal and unjustified.

(3.) The award, therefore suffers from apparent error in calculation of the service rendered by the petitioner. The reference ought to have been answered in favour of the workman. Factual aspect as noted above is not denied by the respondents in their reply to the statement of claim. The only argument which was raised related to the work having been done by the workman in different units. However, as noted above in the last unit i.e. Jaipur, the workman has worked for more than 240 days independent of having worked in the earlier units and thus, the benefit was required to have been given to him in terms of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. Hence, the termination is held to be illegal. The consequential relief to which the petitioner would be now entitled would be reinstatement in service.