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 · 271 wordsS.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court dated April 5, 2000 (copy Annexure P-3) vide which respondent No. 1 was ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity of service and 50% back wages.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, we find that this writ petition is without merit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the workman had not worked for 240 days. However, there is a finding of the Labour Court that a study of the muster rolls from December, 1993 to November, 1994 shows that during this period, respondent No. 1 had completed his duty for 271 days. When from the muster rolls, this conclusion has been drawn, the petitioner ought to have taken a specific plea to show that this finding of the Labour Court is not correct and this is not done.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the work for which respondent No. 1 was employed, was of a seasonal nature. The work in the Forest Department may be of a seasonal nature or may not be so. It is a question of fact to be pleaded and decided in each case. It has not been shown as to what evidence has been led to show that the work was of a seasonal nature. Moreover, for the said plea, no issue has been pressed for in the Court below.
No other ground has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
In view of the above reasons, this writ petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed