JUDGMENT
S.T. Kharche, J.
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were employed as labour by the respondents in the year 1980 at Rawanwadi tank and continued in service without any break till their termination. The termination was challenged before the Labour Court. The Labour Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the petitioners did not complete continuous service of 240 days in a year preceding to their termination. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed a Revision before the Industrial Court which came to be dismissed on 26.9.2002.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that the respondents are in the custody of the records and onus was on them to prove that the petitioners did not work for continuous period of 240 days in a year. He contended that even an application for taking inspection of the records was made before the Labour Court but the respondents could not make available the records. The respondents also did not make available the E.G.S. muster roll since 1987 to 1992 for inspection and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained in law. So also, he further contended that the Industrial Court has overlooked the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the I.D. Act) and the order passed by it is perverse. In support of these submissions, he relied on the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of (i) H.D. Singh v. Reserve Bank of India and (ii) Chief Conservator of Forests and Anr. v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare and Ors. .
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that even the juniors to the petitioners were retained in service and the petitioners though had completed the continuous working of 240 days in a year preceding year to their termination, have been terminated orally on 1.11.1992 and, in such circumstances, the matter may be remanded to the Labour Court with the direction to the respondents to produce the record.
5. Mr. Kothari, learned A.G.P., contended that the petitioners were employed by respondent No. 1 in the year 1980 at Ravanwadi tank, but the petitioners admitted in their examlnation-in-chief before the Labour Court that they were engaged as labours in the year 1983 and that they were engaged in service on daily wages for distribution of water from the month of October to November in kharif season for one month. Therefore, the question of continuation from 1980 without any break does not arise. He contended that the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-N of the I.D. Act would not be attracted in such a case especially when the petitioners did not complete working of 240 days in one year. He further contended that after the application was filed by the petitioners for production of record, the relevant documents were produced from 1980 to 1982. He further submitted that the record was made available to the Labour Court and some of the record which was bulky was inspected by the learned Counsel for the petitioners at the office of the respondents and relying on that record the Labour Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the petitioners have failed to establish that they had completed 240 days of service in a calendar year. He contended that the Revision Court has taken into consideration the entire circumstances and dismissed the revision. The petitioners were appointed for one month only. However, they were called as per the requirement of labour and they were appointed and worked only for 51 days in a calendar year. This fact is also admitted by the petitioners and, therefore, the Industrial Court was perfectly justified in dismissing the revision. He, therefore, contended that there is no merit in the petition and it may be dismissed.
6. I have carefully considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were employed as casual labourers with respondent No. 1 for supplying the water. It is also not in dispute that the services of the petitioners were terminated on 1.11.1992 and, therefore, the petitioners challenged their termination before the Labour Court. The Labour Court dismissed the complaint and the Revisional Court confirmed the finding of the Labour Court. What is pertinent to note is that both the Courts have concurrently held that the petitioners did not complete the continuous work of 240 days in a year and on the basis of this finding it was held that the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act would not be applicable in the cases of the petitioners who were casual workers and this does not amount to unfair labour practice.
7. I may usefully refer the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur U.P. v. Satrughan Nishad and Ors. wherein Their Lordships held in para 10 that “Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in the alternative submitted that in the resent batch of appeals, there are disputed questions of facts as according to the contesting respondents, they had worked for more than 240 days whereas the stand of the Mill was that from the day the contesting respondents joined, in not a single year, the Mill was functional for a period of 240 days and during the years in question, the functioning of the Mill was between 45 days to 199 days. Further, according to the contesting respondents, some of them were seasonal workman. In our view, these are disputed questions of facts which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction and the same can be decided by the Courts constituted under the provisions of the Act. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in entertaining the writ applications.” These observations, if taken into consideration in the present case, it is obvious that this Court cannot entertain the petition and therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the question whether the petitioners had completed continuous work for the period of 240 days, being disputed by the petitioners in spite of the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, it would not be proper for this Court to exercise writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere into the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below. There is no error or illegality in the orders passed by both the Courts below and, therefore, for want of merits, the writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.