AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—The writ petition is filed by the workman challenging the order of the Labour Court dated 31.5.1999 vide which his claim for re- instate-ment was defined. Labour Court has held that the actual working days of the petitioner were 179 days and added 31 days for the month of July, 1992, for which no muster roll or pay roll was produced and held that the petitioner had no.t completed 240 days. The Labour Court has not taken into consideration the period for which the petitioner could not work because of accident. In the annexure P-1, the petitioner has stated that he remained in hospital because of accident and in the deposition of the witness of the management, it has been admitted that the accident occurred during the job. Consequently, the petitioner has relied upon section 25-B(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to sub-section the interruption in service because of sickness of the workman has to be included in un-in-terrupted service. The Labour Court has not taken this into consideration, though there was a plea of the petitioner regarding the accident and the admission of MW-1 mat the accident occurred during the course of job. We, therefore, find it proper to remand this case to the Labour Court for taking decision on the point. Parties may lead evidence on the point, if they so desire, before the Labour Court.
As a result the award of the Labour Court is set aside and the case is remanded to the Labour Court for taking decision in accordance with the law.
Petition allowed.