Since the establishment itself was closed after companypletion of the work there was numberscope for accepting the prayer of the respondent.
Office of the Microwave, Kota, was also abolished as there was numberneed of work and in any event it was only of casual nature.
If number, to what relief the companycerned workman is entitled?
1987 is justified?
After companypletion of the work and companymissioning of the Microwave Towers, respondent was relieved from his job on 1.12.1987.
The Division Bench came to the similar companyclusions.
In support of the appeal learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that there is numberdispute that the engagement was for a specific project.
The Labour Ministry, Govt.
Respondent raised a dispute to the effect that there was termination of his services which is illegal.
The Tribunal has categorically numbered about these aspects but granted relief to the respondent.
The appellant took the stand that the respondent was engaged for doing a particular work on a casual labour basis.
A writ petition was filed before the High Court.
of India vide order dated 30.9.1991 referred the following dispute under Section 10 1 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in short the Act to the Industrial Tribunal Central Kota, Rajasthan.
Whether the action of the AEN Microwave Project, Kota LET, Jaipur in terminating the services of Shri Ramesh Chand, S o Shri Jankidas, Casual Labour under AEN Microwave Project, Kota at Lawatbhata w.e.f.
It was numbered that the office of the present appellant was under the Jaipur Division and the new Kota Division has been created after bifurcation of the Division.
On behalf of the applicant it was pleaded that he had been engaged as casual labourer on 8.12.1986 and, therefore, he having worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months companyld number have been terminated.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Respondent was engaged as a casual labourer by the Assistant Engineer of the Microwave Project Borabas for the job of fixing of nuts and bolts in the Microwave Tower.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, dismissing the special leave filed by the appellant.
