ORDER
1. The petitioner, who was working as Badali Conductor, was terminated by the first respondent. He approached the Labour Court under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court rejected the petition of the petitioner holding that he had not completed 240 days of service and therefore he is not entitled to the relief. In those circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to quash the order of termination at Annexure-B and the order of the Labour Court at Annexure-D with a further prayer to direct the first respondent to reinstate him with continuity of service, backwages and other consequential benefits.
2. Respondents have not filed counter.
3. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that despite the petitioner placed evidence on record and relied upon the decisions and the Circulars referred to in paragraph 9 of the impugned order, the Labour Court did not consider them properly.
4. A perusal of the impugned order of the Labour Court reveals that without assigning any reasons the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not completed 240 days of service. The reasons assigned in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Award are not at all reasons in the eye of law. What is stated in paragraph 8, relevant portion is extracted below for ready reference.–
“He has subsequently produced Exs. W. 1 and 2. Both are originals. They are not copies by sending the original to the concerned officers. Under the circumstances, except the oral evidence, there is nothing on record to show that the claimant admitted to reinstatement”.
A plain reading of what has been extracted above clearly demonstrates that the reasoning of the Labour Court does not convey any meaning at all. The order of the Labour Court based upon such meaningless reasonings cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed. While exercising the power under Section 11A of the Act, the Labour Court is expected to consider the contentions raised with regard to the facts of the case. In the instant case the Labour Court, by assigning irrelevant reasons, discarding the material evidence and ignoring the Circulars relied upon by the workman, has recorded a finding that the workman did not complete 240 days of service and therefore he was not entitled for the relief. This approach of the Labour Court is erroneous and it has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned award of the Labour Court at Annexure-D is quashed. The Labour Court is directed to dispose of the matter afresh within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order keeping in view the decisions relied upon by the petitioner, the Circulars and other material on record.
6. It is also open to the petitioner to file an application seeking interim relief. If such application is filed, the Labour Court may grant appropriate relief in accordance with law.