Back
2006 Supreme(Raj) 2464
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Mohammad Rafiq
Banshi Lal - Appellant
Versus
Judge, Labour & Industrial Tribunal - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2595 of 2002
Decided On : 10/19/2006
Mr. K.V. Vyas, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rameshwar Dave, Dy. Government Advocate, for the Respondent.
The delay in making a reference to the Labour Court and the petitioner's working period being less than four months were crucial factors in the court's decision to dismiss the claim.
Headnote:
Labour Court - Termination of Service - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 25-G, 25-H, Rule 77 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 77 of the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules in the context of the termination of the petitioner's services. The court found that the petitioner's working period was less than four months and that the delay in making the reference to the Labour Court was nine years, leading to the dismissal of the claim.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur, regarding the legality of his termination from service by the respondents. The petitioner claimed that his termination was illegal and improper, and sought reinstatement with back wages.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's working period was less than four months and that the delay in making the reference to the Labour Court was nine years, leading to the dismissal of the claim.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the petitioner's termination from service, compliance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the delay in making the reference to the Labour Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in making the reference to the Labour Court, combined with the petitioner's working period of less than four months, warranted the dismissal of the claim.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Mohammad Rafiq, J.-The petitioner Banshi Lal has in this writ petition challenged the award dated 27.04.2002 passed by learned Labour Court, Jodhpur.
2. A reference was made to the Labour Court by appropriate Government vide notification dated 10.03.1999 on the question whether the removal of the petitioner-workman from service by the respondents
w.e.f. 25.08.1990 was legal and justified and if not, what relief the workman was entitled to.
3. According to the averments made in the statement of claim of the workman, he was appointed by verbal order of Assistant Engineer, PHED Division-IIIrd Lift Canal, Jodhpur on 01.04.1990 on daily wages basis @ of Rs. 14/-per day which was later on enhanced to Rs. 22/-per day. Suddenly the respondent by verbal order terminated his services on 24.08.1990 without making compliance of the provisions of Section 25-G & 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) and Rule 77 of the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules. The respondent did not serve the petitioner-workman with a notice prior to his removal. While all those who were engaged with him namely Jagat Singh, Mohan, Jaina Ram and Jagdish were still continued in job but the petitioner was removed from the service. It was, therefore, prayed that the termination of his services be declared illegal and improper and the respondent be directed to reinstate him with continuity in service and back wages.
4. The claim of the petitioner was contested by the respondent-management who denied that the petitioner was continuously working from 01.04.1990 to 24.08.1990. It was contended that the petitioner worked only for few days but in broken spells. So far the workmen Jugat Singh, Mohan, Jaina Ram and Jagdish were concerned they were continuously working much prior to petitioner’s engagement. In fact Jaina Ram was initially appointed in the year 1989 who also worked upto 30.09.1990 and thereafter absented from the duties. But he was reinstated in service pursuant to the award passed in his favour by learned Labour Court. The case of the petitioner is, however, is entirely different. It was, therefore, prayed that the claim of the petitioner be dismissed with costs.
5. Learned Labour Court after recording of evidence of the parties and hearing their arguments finally dismissed the claim of the petitioner-workman answering the reference made by the appropriate government in the affirmative and holding the workman not entitled to any relief .
6. I have heard Sh. K.V. Vyas, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. R. Dave, Dy. Learned Government Advocate for respondent who in their arguments have supported their respective cases as pleaded before learned Labour Court.
7. Sh. K.V. Vyas, learned Counsel for petitioner argued that findings recorded by the learned Labour Court that the petitioner abandoned the service on his own were based on mis-reading and wrong appreciation of the evidence in as much as those findings were erroneously recorded. Learned Labour Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner was retrenched on 25.08.1990 and within two days thereafter he filed writ petition on 27.08.1990. It would not, therefore, be accepted that the petitioner abandoned the job at his own. He argued that even if the petitioner did not complete 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of his retrenchment, violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act and Rule 77 of the Rules cited supra was proved and there was no evidence that the petitioner abandoned the service.
8. On the other hand Shri Rameshwar Dave, learned Deputy Government Advocate argued that the award passed by the learned Labour Court is based on sound reasoning. In doing so, learned Labour Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and recorded the findings which are the findings of fact. It was further argued that burden to prove the violation of Section 25-F lays on the workman and merely giving of the names would not by itself be sufficient to prov
