JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SURESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT writ petition has been filed impugning the award of the Labour Court, Jaipur dated 27/3/1996 whereby the retrenchment/termination of the respondent workman was declared illegal and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and back wages at the rate of Rs. 1000. 00 per year.

(2.) BEFORE the Labour Court the respondent workman claimed to have worked more than 240 days in one calendar year with the petitioner and asserted that his termination was against the provisions contained in Sec. 25-F of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act ). The Labour Court after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, observed that the contention of the workman was correct and the petitioner employer had flouted Sec. 25-F of the Act.

(3.) MR. Mahendra Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner canvassed that the workman did not work for more than 240 days in one calendar year. The evidence was not properly appreciated. Respondent was casual employee and his disengagement from service cannot be construed to be a retrenchment under the Act. Reliance was placed on Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others v/s. State of Bihar and others. , 1997 (76) FLR 237 (SC ).