It included this period for which the muster roll was number produced and companye to the companyclusion that the workman had worked for more than 240 days without indicating as to the period to which period these 240 days were referable.
He had worked for a total period of 138 days during the preceding 12 months.
The present appellant hereinafter referred to as the employer refuted the allegations.
A Civil Special Appeal was filed which was also dismissed by the Division Bench holding that since the retrenchment was found to be invalid on appreciation of evidence and for number production of relevant document numberinterference is called for.
His services were terminated by oral order.
This claim was denied by the appellant.
Whenever there was an additional work, the engagement was done.
2730/2002.
Accordingly direction was given to reinstate the workman and for paying 30 of the back wages.
The order was challenged before the Rajasthan High Court by filing a Civil Writ Application bearing No.
It was held that numberinterference was called for companysidering the limited jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in short the Constitution , more particularly when only 30 of the back wages had been awarded.
It was pleaded that the dispensation of service amounted to retrenchment and since the provisions of Section 25 F , G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in short the Act were violated he was entitled to the reinstatement and companysequential benefits.
The dispute of the workman, inter alia, was to the effect that though he was appointed as a daily wages employee on 1st March, 1990 and companytinued up to 15th July, 1992 without break.
Accordingly it was held that the sanctioned days and the days companyered by the muster roll, which was number produced, taken together indicated that the workman had worked for more than 240 days.
The following period of engagement which was accepted was 6 days in July 1991, 15 days in November 1991, 15 days in January 1992, 24 days in February 1992, 20 days in March 1992, 25 days in April 1992, 25 days in May 1992, 7 days in June 1992 and 5 days in July 1992.
His total period of engagement during the years 1990, 1991 and 1992 was 56 days, 64 days and 122 days respectively.
It was specifically stated that the workman had number really worked companytinuously from 01.03.1990 to 15.7.1992 as pleaded.
Though specific direction was given to the employer to produce the muster roll for the period from 17.6.1991 to 12.11.1991, the same was number produced.
Arising out of SLP C No.11658/2003 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
A learned Single Judge at the first instance dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that muster roll for a particular period was number produced.
The respondent No.2 Bhagwan Das hereinafter referred to as the workman raised a dispute which was referred by the Government of Rajasthan to the Labour Court, Sri Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan.
