AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 231 wordsS.S. Sudhalkar, J.—By this writ petition, the employer is challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 28.4.1999 (Copy Annexure P/1) vide which respondent No. 1 was ordered to be reinstated in service with 25% back wages.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent No. 2 was unskilled Mazdoor and was not regularly appointed candidate. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the workman had not completed 240 days of service. The Labour Court in para No. 6 of the award has held as on-der;-
".....The perusal of then working days chart along with M/Rolls produced by the management clearly evidences this fact that the workman worked for total 243 days from 6/89 till 5/90 assuming that the remained absent from duty for 6/90 in one calendar year preceding to the date of alleged absence...."
This finding of the Labour Court has not been shown to be wrong.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was not a regularly appointed candidate and therefore, he cannot have any right for the post. It is not shown that the petitioner''s case is that the service of respondent No. 1 was terminated for accommodating a regularly appointed candidate. Right which the workman has accrued under the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be then taken away.
This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Petition dismissed.