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
5 paragraphs · 164 wordsS.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 4.2.2000 (Copy Annexure P/4) vide which respondent No. 2 was ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity of service and back wages.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent was engaged in Forest department where the work is only seasonal. However, it is not shown that there was any evidence led by the petitioner to show that the work for which respondent No. 2 was appointed was a seasonal one. It cannot be said that all the employees of Forest department are seasonal employees and when this plea is taken by the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to substantiate the same.
Mo other point has been argued before us.
In view of the above reasons, we do not find any infirmity with the award of the Labour Court. This writ petition being without merit is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.