Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 375
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Managing Director, Coromandel International Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Rameshwar Lal S/o. Mangi Lal Meghwal and Anr. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2873 Of 2016 With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 694 Of 2016
Decided On : 17-02-2023
For the Petitioner: Dr. Harish Purohit.
For the Respondents: Mr. R.S. Choudhary.
Point of Law: Party-Workman had worked in Company for more than four years, and thus, his sudden retrenchment from service was not lawful.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Retrenchment from service - Seeking impleadment - Prayed that petition may kindly allowed and impugned award may kindly be declared illegal and be accordingly quashed and set aside – Workman had worked in Company for more than four years, and thus, his sudden retrenchment from service was not lawful – Para 9.
Finding of the Court:
Court finds that learned Labour Court observed in impugned order that party-Workman had worked in Company for more than four years, and thus, his sudden retrenchment from service was not lawful - Learned Labour Court further observed that since party-Workman was retrenched from service nine years prior to passing of impugned order, therefore, any direction with regard to his reinstatement in service would not be justified - Impugned order passed by learned court below, is a well reasoned speaking order, as learned Labour Court had awarded compensation to party-Workman as lump-sum amount, alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum, which was perfectly justified in law.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. These civil writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2873/2016 (By Company):
“It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned award dated 30.11.2015 Annexure1 passed by the Labour Court Udaipur in Labour Case No.9/2008 may kindly be declared illegal and be accordingly quashed and set aside.
Any other relief to which the petitioner appears entitle to may kindly be also passed in favour of the petitioner.”
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 694/2016 (By Workman):
“It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:
(i) the impugned judgment and award dated 30.11.2015 may kindly be modified upto the extent of reinstatement in lieu of compensation.
(ii) The respondent company may kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of fitter with all consequential benefits with back wages.
(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the parties, are that the party-Workman was appointed vide order dated 21.03.2002 as Helper in the party-Company (earlier known as ‘Liberty Phosphate Company’), on monthly pay of Rs.1,820/-. Thereafter, he was posted as Fitter; on 07.09.2006 during the duty hours, he sustained injury on the left wrist. On the very next day i.e. 08.09.2006, the party-Workman requested the party-Company that in connection with the said injury, he was required to undergo the necessary medical treatment, whereupon the party-Company refused to permit the party-workman to perform his duty. The Company also retrenched the party-workman from service vide verbal order on 08.09.2006.
2.1. The party-Workman filed an application before Labour Commissioner, Udaipur for settlement. The Labour Commissioner referred the matter for conciliation, but the conciliation proceedings were declared as failed, and accordingly, the matter was forwarded to the State Government for making the necessary reference. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Labour vide its notification dated 10.04.2008 made a reference to the learned Industrial Disputes Tribunal & Labour Court, Udaipur.
2.2. During the pendency of the reference and the statement of claim, the Liberty Phosphate Ltd. was merged into KORO Mandal International Ltd (party-Company). The party-workman filed an application seeking impleadment of the KORO (CORO) Mandal International Ltd. as respondent therein; the said application was allowed and the amended cause title was taken on record.
2.3. The learned Labour Court, after hearing both the parties and examining the documents on record, passed the impugned order dated 30.11.2015, while directing the party-Company to pay, to the party-workman, a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum, while declaring the workman’s retrenchment from service as illegal. The needful, as per the impugned order, was directed to be done within a period of one month from the date of passing of the said order.
3. Learned counsel for the party-Company submitted that the claim of the party-Workman that he was the employee of the Company herein was apparently false, more particularly, when the party-workman has completely failed to prove the existence of master-servant relationship, between him and the Company herein.
4. Learned counsel for the party-Company further submitted that the learned Court below however, without considering the settled position of law, and without considering the evidences and material place on record, passed the impugned order, which is clearly unsustainable in the eye of law.
4.1. Learned counsel in support of his submissions,
