1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION No. 2678 OF 1994 Madhav S/o Irbaji Puyed, Age 35 years, Occu. Nil, R/o Waghala, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. ....Petitioner. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra, through Government Pleader. 2] The General Manager, Govt. Milk Scheme, M.I.D.C., Nanded. ....Respondents. Shri N.K. Tungar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. T.S. Lodhe, A.G.P. for the respondents /State. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 15th July, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This Writ Petition challenges, order dated 06/02/1986 passed by the Labour Court, at Aurangabad in complaint (ULP) No. 15 of 1983 filed by the petitioner. It seems that on the basis of the letter received from the petitioner, this Court has treated it as Writ Petition. Shri P.V. Mandlik, learned senior counsel was appointed as ‘amicus 2 curiae’ and he has filed detailed Writ Petition. 2. The claim of the petitioner / employee was before the Labour Court was that he had completed 240 days service, before the date of his termination on 31/08/1982. He had alleged that he was in service from 07/11/1979 to 12/08/1982. 3. The Labour Court has recorded a finding that the petitioner has not completed 240 days continuous service and was not entitled or eligible to invoke the provisions of Sec. 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act, regarding giving notice and compensation of retrenchment. 4. In response to the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. Affidavit has been filed for and on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2, on internal page No. 3 of the affidavit days of the employment of the petitioner are given which is as under :- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Sr. period No. of days Amt. of contract -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 1] 1/6/80 to 30/6/80 30 180/- 2] 1/7/80 to 31/7/80 31 180/- 3] 1/8/80 to 31/8/80 31 180/- 4] 1/4/80 to 30/9/80 30 180/- 5] 1/10/80 to 31/10/80 31 180/- 6] 1/11/80 to 30/11/80 30 180/- 3 7] 1/12/80 to 30/12/80 30 180/- 8] 1/2/81 to 28/02/81 28 180/- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-== Although it is denied in the return that petitioner has worked with the department for 240 days continuous service, the number of days if calculated as stated above, clearly indicate that the petitioner has worked for 241 days. It is further submitted that he was employed on temporary basis after March, 1981. It is further stated that there was delay in approaching the Labour Court. It is further stated that the Labour Court also dismissed the complaint on the ground that it is barred by limitation and no sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay for one and half month . 5. After going through the order passed by the Labour Court, which is impugned in the present petition, and after going through the reply filed by the respondents in the instant Writ Petition. I am of the view that, the Labour Court has committed an error in refusing to accept the explanation furnished by the petitioner for condonation of delay of one and half month. The Petitioner has stated the reasons that he had approached the concerned authorities for grant of employment, and therefore, the time was spent. The Labour Court ought to have accepted the said explanation for condonation of delay. 4 6. On merits of the matter, the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the petitioner has not established that he had worked continuously for 240 days preceding the date of termination. From the affidavit filed by the respondents, it is apparent that the petitioner has worked for 241 days from 01/06/1980 to 28/2/1981. Thus, the provision of Section 25-F were attracted for admitted in non compliance, the Labour Court ought to have granted reinstatement in service to the petitioner herein. 7. So far as, question of grant of back wages is concerned, petitioner made no evidence to establish that he was not in gainful employment and hence, back wages cannot be granted. 8. In the result, the instant Writ Petition is allowed, the judgment and order dated 06/02/1986 passed by the Labour Court, at Aurangabad dismissing the complaint (ULP) No. 15 of 1983 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner as daily wager and to provide him work as daily wager. The Rule is made absolute on the above terms, there shall be no order as to costs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] SDM*2678.94(J)