STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed against the Labour Court Award dated 23.11.1993 passed in Labour case No. 17/1992, by which the Labour Court, Bikaner came to the conclusion that the termination of the services of respondent -workman vide order dated 9.10.1992 was invalid as the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') had not been complied with and it was directed to treat the petitioner in continuous service.

(2.) THE facts of the case,.. from the record, are that the respondent workman though shown in the record as having been appointed as a part -time employee, he was asked to do the work for eight hours and he was appointed on 5.12.1989 and continued till 9.10.1990 when his services were orally terminated. The State made a reference under Section 10 of the Act to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute: whether the termination of the services of the workman on 9.10.1990 was valid? The Labour Court, after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by both the parties, came to the conclusion that the workman was a full -time employee and he had worked for 240 days in a calendar year and even if he was a part -time employee, he cannot be deprived of the protection under Section 25F of the Act and ultimately came to the conclusion that the retrenchment/termination of the services of the workman was illegal as the provision of Section 25F of the Act have not been complied with. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said Award dated 23.11.1993, the State has preferred this petition.

(3.) MR . Bhati could not succeed on any point and could not successfully assail the findings of facts recorded by the Labour Court as the labour Court had given a clear -cut arithmetic calculation and reached the conclusion that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and his services were terminated unceremoniously without compliance being made of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act though he did not fall in any of the exceptions Provided under the Act. However, Mr. Bhati has vehemently argued that the workman is not entitled for any relief whatsoever under the Act as he did not work for atleast one calendar year i.e., twelve months. Admittedly, the workman was employed on 5.12.1989 and his services were terminated on 9.10.1990. Thus, Shri Bhati has urged that the period of one year is to be calculated backward from the date of termination, i.e., 9.10.1990 and thus, the workman worked only for a period of ten months and four days and he was not entitled for any relief under the Act. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in: State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Vinay Kumar and Ors. 1978 WLN (UC) 223, wherein the Court has very heavily relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in: Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. v. The Workman : (1963)IILLJ367SC . In the said case, after interpreting the provisions of Section 25F and Section 25B alongwith other provisions of the Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that to get any benefit under the provisions of the Act, it is mandatory that a workman must work atleast for one year continuously and if he has worked less than twelve calendar months even if he has worked for more than 240 days then he would not be entitled for any relief under the Act.