1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6195/2003. Suresh Kumar Vs. The Judge, CIT, Jaipur and Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 09.02.2007. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. R.S.Saluja, for the petitioner Mr. P.K. Lohra, for the respondents By this petition for writ, validity, propriety and correctness of the award dated 1.6.2001 passed by the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur is challenged. In brief, the facts of the case are that the appropriate government referred an industrial dispute to the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in terms as to "whether the action of the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Mount Abu, District Sirohi (Raj.) was justified in terminating the services of Mr. Suresh Kumar from the post of Sweeper? If not, for what relief the workman is entitled?" The petitioner submitted a statement of claim stating therein that he was employed as a Sweeper on daily rate basis with the employer on 1.10.1994, but was retrenched from 2 service on 1.8.1997, without adhearing the mandatory condition precedents to do so as precribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947' hereinafter) and also in violation of the principles of last come first go as enshrined under section 25-G of the Act of 1947. In written, the employer stated that the workman was never retrenched from service and he was also not in continuous employment of the employer as defined under Section 25-B of the Act of 1947. The Labour Court after adjudicating the dispute reached at the conclusion that though the workman worked with the employer during the period from 5.10.1994 to 30.4.1997 but in any calander year he did not complete continuous service as defined under Section 25-B of the Act of 1947. A specific finding is given that even from the date of termination i.e. 30.4.1997, the workman did not completed 240 days of service in preceding one year. A finding of fact is also given that as a matter of fact, the service of the applicant-petitioner was never terminated on 1.8.19971, but he did not work with the employer after 30.4.1997. Learned Tribunal refused to enter into the question with regard to the violation of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act by treating 1.5.1997 as the date of retrenchment of the 3 petitioner, being contrary to the pleadings of the workman itself. While giving challenge to the award impugned, it is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the labour court erred while refusing to examine the question with regard to violation of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act of 1947 as even according to the respondent-employer, the workman worked upto 30.4.1997 and therefore, the issue should have been decided as efficacious pleadings were available on record that the persons junior to the workman, reference of whom was given in para 9 of the statement of claim were allowed to continue in service. Per contra, it is contended by the counsel for the respondents that the specific case of the workman was that he was in employment upto 31.7.1997 and was retrenched from service on 1.8.1997, but that was found incorrect by the Labour Court, as such, there were no pleadings with regard to the termination of the workman w.e.f. 1.5.1997, as such, the Labour Court rightly refused to examine the question with regard to violation of the provisions of Section 25-B and 25-F of the Act of 1947. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4 It is not in dispute and also manifest from the award impugned that a specific finding of fact is given by the Labour court that the statement of workman to the effect that he was in employment in the respondent Bank up to 31.7.1997 was not correct. The workman in his statement of claim in quite unambigious terms said that he worked during the period from 1.10.1994 to 1.8.1997. Objection with regard to the date of termination was raised by the employer in the written statement itself, but the workman never cared to get his pleadings amended and pressed his case uptill last by treating 1.8.1997 as the date of his termination. It appears from persual of the award impugned that at the time of hearing after getting a finding about erroneous date of retrenchment, an effort was made by the counsel for the workman to treat 1.5.1997 as the date of termination of the workman so as to decide the question with regard to violation of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act of 1947 and the same was refused on the count that the etire pleadings and adjudication of the dispute was made by treating 1.8.1997 as the date of retrenchment. I do not find any error in it as the Tribunal was required to decide the dispute on the basis of issues framed and the evidence available on record. No finding could have been 5 given by the Court below without having adequate pleadings and evidence with regard to the issue sought to be resolved. In such circumstances, the labour Court has rightly refused to examine the issue as suggested by the counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing of the dispute. Accordingly, the petition for writ is having no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. rm/