The Labour Court held that Section 25 F of the ID Act was number attracted since the workman failed to prove that he had worked companytinuously for 240 days in the calendar year preceding his termination on September 6, 1985.
The Single Judge, accordingly, vide his judgment and order dated August 13, 2001 directed reinstatement of the respondent into service but without back wages and companytinuity of service.
The Single Judge of the High Court overturned the finding of the Labour Court about number applicability of Section 25 F and held that Section 25 F of the ID Act was attracted and the procedure provided therein having number been followed, the termination of respondent petitioner therein was illegal.
The respondent was engaged as daily wager in 1978 and his engagement companytinued for about 7 years intermittently upto September 6, 1985 i.e. about 25 years back.
He raised industrial dispute relating to his retrenchment which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Mysore but later on the dispute was transferred to the Labour Court, Chickmagalur.
The respondent challenged the award passed by the Labour Court by filing a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court.
On December 9, 2004, the writ appeal preferred by the present appellants was dismissed by the Division Bench.
The Labour Court, Chickmagalur by its award on December 21, 1994 rejected the respondents claim.
The present appellants challenged the judgment and order of the Single Judge in writ appeal before Division Bench but without any success.
Shankar Shetty the respondent was initially engaged as daily wager by the appellants in 1978.
