1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2240 OF 2008 (State of Maharashtra vs. Sou. Vimal Domaji Waghmare ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. OCTOBER 08, 2008. Heard Shri Kothari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioner and Shri Kalbande, learned counsel for the respondent. The learned AGP points out that the respondent was on daily wages from 21.10.1984 to 30.09.1985 and the petitioner could not produce any documents to show exact length of her service. He, however, contends that being daily wager, she has no right to post and, therefore, there is no question of granting her relief of reinstatement. He places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Telephone District Manager vs. Keshab Deb, reported at 2008 LAB. I.C. 2615, in support of his contentions. Shri Kalbande, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, states that in view of the judgment of larger Bench of this Court in the case of R.M. Yellath vs. The Assistant Executive 2 Engineer, reported at 2005 III CLR 1025, particularly para 14, burden was heavy upon the petitioner to show that the respondent did not complete 240 days. He also relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways vs. Rudhan Singh, reported at (2005) 5 SCC 591, para 5 at page 595 to urge that completion of 12 calender months in service is not essential when service of more than 240 days is complete. It is apparent that the respondent examined herself and one Muster clerk to show that she had put in more than 240 days of service between 21.10.1984 to 30.9.1985, that period is less than 12 months. The petitioner could not produce any document or any evidence to show that she did not work for 240 days. The Labour Court has granted relief of reinstatement only because of violation of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The 240 day's finding of Labour Court, therefore, needs to be accepted. It may be mentioned here that the respondent was only a daily wager and it has come on record that she has not entered the services through proper channel and she was not appointed after following due procedure and, therefore, relief 3 of reinstatement could not have been given to her. The respondent herself stated that she was working on daily wages and her monthly salary worked out to Rs.347/-. Thus, her yearly salary roughly works out to Rs.4,000/- and, therefore, I award her compensation of Rs.15,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. The award of reinstatement is accordingly modified and it is declared that the respondent is entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- in lieu of relief of reinstatement plus retrenchment compensation and notice pay, if already not received by the respondent. The amount awarded as compensation be deposited by 31st March 2009 before the Labour Court at Wardha. If the amount is not deposited by 31st March 2009, the petitioner shall pay interest @ 7% per annum from today till its actual realization by the respondent. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS. 4