JUDGMENT
S.S. Sudhalkar, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 6.11.1998 vide which respondent No. 1 was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and 50 per cent back wages.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent has not worked for 240 days in the preceding one year. He has relied on annexure P/1. Of course it is statement prepared by the Sub Divisional Engineer. However, it is considered for the limited purpose to see as to what is the effect of the statement on the merits of this case if it is presumed to be correct. The statement shows that in the year 1995, the respondent has worked for 89 days and in the year 1996 he has worked for 178 days. The petitioner had
worked upto 31.7.96. The calculation made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is for the calendar year in which the petitioner had last worked. This argument was made before the Labour Court also. The Labour Court has observed inter alia as under:
“….It is contended on behalf of the respondents that Surender Kumar did not work for 240 days in last calendar year of 1996. It is of no material help to the respondents, as for ‘Continuous’ service, within its meaning in Section 25-B of the Act, relevant period is preceding year and not calendar year.”
4. The observations of the Labour Court cannot be said to be wrong. What is to be seen is the number of working days of the workman in the year prior to the date of his termination. The Act does not stipulate working in a particular calendar year as such. If calculation is made one year from the date of termination, then also according to annexure P/l the number of working days comes to 253 days. Therefore, I do not find any reason to differ from the findings of the Labour Court that the respondent has worked for more than 240 days.
5. Next argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the service of the respondent has not been terminated but he has abandoned the service. Copy of the written statement filed before the Labour Court is annexure P/3. Of course, it is stated in the written statement that the respondent had left the work at this own. However, the same has not been accepted by the Labour Court. In view of the fact that the petitioner was out to get rid of the respondent and looking to the fact that the demand notice was issued on 2.8.97, there appears to be no reason to infer that the respondent had abandond the service. Moreover, nothing is shown from the evidence that such inference could be drawn.
6. No further ground is argued.
7. As a result, this petition is without merit and is dismissed.
8. Petition dismissed.