THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 21592 of 2001 O R D E R: This writ petition is directed against an Award made in I.D. No. 140 of 1999 dated 10.5.2001 on the file of learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, whereunder the application filed by the petitioner under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking reinstatement with backwages etc. was dismissed. Petitioner is the applicant and respondents 1 to 3 are the management. According to petitioner, he joined the services of respondent-Department with effect from 1.2.1992 as Cleaner-cum- Driver and worked up to 28.2.1997 on various vehicles of respondent- management without any remarks and to the satisfaction of one and all. While that being so, his services were terminated from 28.2.1997 without any fault on his part. According to the petitioner, he had worked for more than 240 days continuously preceding the date of oral termination and the same attracts the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act and since the management has not followed the said provisions, the termination is liable to be decrelared as arbitrary and illegal. However, respondents filed detailed counter before the Labour Court, saying that the petitioner was engaged temporarily whenever necessary, from February 1992, and he was never engaged for all the 30 days in one month nor any removal orders were issued by the management. It is false to say that the services of the petitioner were terminated orally with effect from 28.2.1997. In fact, the whereabouts of the petitioner were not available after April, 1994. He was neither appointed as Cleaner-cum-Driver or as Driver subsequently nor continued up to 28.2.1997. Petitioner was not appointed on regular basis and, therefore, issuance of one month notice does not arise. There was no violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. As per G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.4.1994, petitioner had not put in five years of continuous service as on 25.11.1993, therefore, he was not entitled for regularization of his services. There are no bona fides in the application and, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. On behalf of the petitioner, he was examined as WW-1 and got examined WWs 2 and 3 and marked documents Exs.W-1 to W-7. On behalf of the respondent-management, MWs 1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.M-1 to M-4 were marked. On a consideration of the entire evidence placed before it, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that this is a case where the petitioner did not even possess continuous service of one year preceding 28.2.1997 even accepting the said date as the date of termination, as pleaded by the workman; therefore, this is a case where the services of the workman could not be regularized as per G.O.Ms.No. 212 dated 22.4.1994. Therefore, the O.A. was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner worked continuously from 1992 to 1997 in the respondent-Department. Exs.W-6 and W-7 would make the things very clear. Petitioner worked as a Cleaner up to 1993 and thereafter he worked as Driver till 28.2.1997. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not worked continuously for a period of 240 days in preceding 12 months is not correct. Petitioner had put in more than 240 days of service continuously as on the date of his termination dated 28.2.1997. Even if the petitioner was treated only as Cleaner, he had put in more than 240 days service under Ex.M-1 in a continuous period of twelve months. Therefore, the Labour Court erred in rejecting the O.A. filed by the petitioner-applicant. Whereas, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 strenuously contended that the petitioner appears to have been engaged intermittently as a Cleaner and Driver but he never put in service of 240 days preceding 12 months from the date of his removal from service as claimed by him. Further, the Labour Court has also examined whether his case would be considered under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.4.1994. Since the petitioner had not put in five years as required thereunder, it was declared that he is also not entitled for regularization. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that the Award passed by the Labour Court is either arbitrary or illegal and no ground is made out calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. In this case, the only question that falls for consideration is whether the petitioner had put in continuous service of 240 days before his services were terminated on 28.4.1997. Admittedly, as per Ex.W1, which is admitted by MW-2, petitioner had put in continuous service of 240 days from 1.2.1992 to 30.11.1993 and he had put in total service of 494 days, and 240 days of continuous service in twelve months. Ex.W-6 – bunch of daily log sheets and Ex.W-7 – Oil coupons are admitted by MWs 1 and 2. On the reverse of the coupons, they contain signatures of the petitioner. In fact, MW-2, though denied that the petitioner worked as Driver, admitted that some NMRs were deputed by him as per Ex.W-6 log sheets and he also admitted that Ex.W-7 is the bunch of Xerox copies of oil coupons issued by him and they bear the signatures of the workman on the reverse. The date of issue is seen as 15.2.1997. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner had not worked as Driver or Cleaner-cum-Driver after 1994 as is contended by respondent-management. Therefore, the case of the respondent that the petitioner left their service in the year 1994 and his whereabouts were not known is absolutely false. The Labour Court, while recording the admissions made by MW-3 as to the entries in Exs.W-6 and W-7, erroneously held that the petitioner had not completed five years of service as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.4.1994 and, therefore, he is not entitled for regularization of his service and he had not shown any evidence to show that he had worked for more than 240 days preceding the date of termination i.e. 28.2.1997. The Labour Court ought to have considered that a combined reading of Exs.W-1, W-5, W-6 and W-7 would indicate that the petitioner was in continuous service either as a Cleaner-cum- Driver or Driver continuously up to 28.2.1997. The respondent- management has suppressed the information and they have not produced any records to show that the petitioner did not work as contended by them. Hence, it must be construed that the petitioner worked for more than 240 days in a continuous period of 12 months preceding the date of termination orally on 28.2.1997. Therefore, it is clear that the services of the petitioner were terminated without any notice and without following the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and other attendant benefits as extended in case of such NMRs in the Department, but without backwages. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 21-7-2010. MVB.