AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—The award of the Labour Court in reference No. 60/96, is called in question by the management.
The Labour Court has allowed the claim petition filed by the workman and consequently directed the Corporation to reinstate the claimant into the services without backwages. At the time of issuing notice in this writ petition this Court stayed the award of the Labour Court and consequently workman is not reinstated.
According to the claimant, he worked as a local candidate since from 1992 to 1995; though regular selections were made and though he also stood in cue for appointment on regular basis, his candidature was not considered and he was not selected. Thus, he approached the Labour Court in reference No. 60/96 questioning his termination w.e.f 5.1.1995. The Management raised the ground that the workman has not worked for more then 240 days in the year preceding his termination. The Labour Court on facts has concluded that the workman has worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding his termination. At the first instance also the Labour Court had held that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a year. However, this Court remitted the matter to the Labour Court. Even after remand, the Labour Court concluded that the workman has worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding his termination.
This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the said finding of the fact that the workman has worked for more than 240 days in a year.
In para Nos. 18-21 of the award it is specifically concluded by the tribunal that the oral evidence as well as other material on record by the claimant clearly reveal that he has worked for more than 240 days.
The claimant has made serious allegations against the selection committee pursuant to which some enquiry''s seems to have been held against the officials of the K.S.R.T.C. and certain stringent action was stated to have been taken against certain of the officials who conducted selection process.
Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the claimant has worked for more than 240 days in a year, the Labour Court has rightly concluded that the termination of the petitioner is in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act-1947 and consequently the Court below is justified in directing the corporation to reinstate the workman into services. Hence, no interference is called for. Petitioner shall be reinstated within three months from today without backwages.
Petition fails and the same stands dismissed.