12. It was also the contention of the counsel for the worker that the finding of the Labour Court to the extent of there being a specific violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act stands proved and admitted from the deposition of management witness itself. So far as the discontinuance on account of the expiry of the driving license is concerned, the counsel for the worker referring to the observations made by the State Administrative Tribunal in its award dated 21.07.1994 in O.A. No. 1294/94 submitted that there is a clear finding that the worker had taken necessary steps for ensuring that the license is renewed immediately on its expiry, but it was the delay at the hands of the Transport authority in not promptly renewing the same and for which the worker cannot be either blamed or punished or victimized. According to the counsel for the worker, it is a case where the worker in fact had discharged the burden, so far as the discontinuance being bad, as also the fact that he is out of employment after discontinuance and further that he had continuously worked between 1990 to 1994, which would prove that he had worked for a period of more than 240 days. He further submits that in fact it is the employer’s responsibility to have cogently led evidence to disprove the statement of the worker as also establish from the records so far as compliance of the mandatory provisions of law before discontinuing the services of the worker. The department having failed to lead evidence in this regard, the worker should had been granted the relief of reinstatement with all consequential benefits including back wages and prayed for the writ petition filed by the worker i.e. WPL No. 2418/2011 be allowed.
