Birendra Kuswaha vs State of M.P. and Others

R.S. Jha, J.—Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the award dated 11.07.2012 passed by the Labour Court, Rewa whereby the dispute raised by the petitioner against his discontinuance from service w.e.f. 29.12.1999 has been rejected.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a perusal of the statement of the Management witness Shri O.N. Mishra clearly indicates that the petitioner has worked with the authorities for more than 240 days, therefore, the findings recorded by the Labour Court to the contrary, being perverse deserves to be set aside and the impugned order deserves to be quashed. It is further prayed that the respondent be directed to reinstate the petitioner.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that the Labour Court, after considering the aforesaid statement of the Management witness, has recorded a finding to the effect that there is no evidence on record to indicate that the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in the preceeding 12 months from 29.12.1999. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to bring anything on record or point out any perversity to establish that this finding is incorrect and the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in the preceeding 12 months. It is also clear that the Labour Court, by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Nagar Nigam Faridabad vs. Shri Nivas, 2004(105) FLR 187, has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he has failed to establish that he has worked for more than 240 days. In view of the aforesaid, I find no perversity or material illegality in the award passed by the Labour Court warranting interference by this Court. The petition, filed by the petitioner, being meritless is accordingly dismissed.