Honble ASOPA, J.–In writ petition No. 4298/1993, the award of Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur dated 3.12.1992 (Ann. 6) is under challenge whereas in another writ petition i.e. 2396/1996, the workman raised the grievance of non-compliance of the award, more particularly, proceeding under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) before Labour Court, Jaipur for computation of back-wages and other benefits as awarded by Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur. The subsequent writ petition is arising out of execution proceeding of award which is under challenge in earlier writ filed by State, therefore, both the writ petitions are connected and being decided by this common order.

(2). Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the workman was appointed as patwari in the regular pay-scale vide order dated 2.3.1973 against the leave reserve vacancy. The workman submitted the joining report on 5.3.1973 and he continuously worked from 5.3.1973 to May, 1974, but when the wages of the said period were not paid, the workman approached the payment of Wages Authority (for short the Authority) for getting wages from June, 1973 to May, 1974 by filing an application before the Authority and the Authority awarded the wages claimed by the workman. In the month of June, 1974, his services were terminated by an oral order. On 4.5.1982, the workman was taken back in service. He kept writing to the department to regularize the period of his service from May 1974 to 30.5.1982. The workman raised the industrial dispute regarding regularization of his service before the conciliation officer, but no settlement was arrived at and the failure report was submitted. On 27.8.1987 (Ann. 3), the State refused to make reference. Against the said order, the workman filed the writ petition which was registered as DBCWP No. 3213/1987 Harish Chandra Sharma vs. State wherein on 13.3.1989, the State was directed to make reference. The State Government, in compliance of the said order, made reference on 10.4.1989 to Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur as under :

^^D;k fu;kstd la- 1 eq[; vfHk;rk] flapkbZ foHkkx] jktLFkku t;iqj ,oa fu;kstd ua- 2 vf/kkklh vfHk;Urk flapkbZ [k-M vyoj }kjk Jfed Jh gjhk pUnz kekZ iq= Jh y{ehukjk;.k kekZ] nsgyh njokts ckgj] xkSkkyk ds lkeus vyoj dks lsok ls i`Fkd djuk ,oa okil lsok esa ysdj mldh lsok dh yxkrkj u ekuuk mfpr ,oa oS/k ;fn ugha rks Jfed fdl jkgr dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA**

(3). The workman filed claim petition and reply to the same, was filed by the State. After taking evidence and hearing both the parties, the Industrial Tribunal passed the award in favour of the workman declaring that the oral termination of the workman amounts to retrenchment which has been passed in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, therefore, the same was void and the workman was awarded continuity of service with backwages and in case, he is not paid the same within a period of three months, he will be entitled to 12% interest.

(4). Against the said award, the first writ petition i.e. SBCWP No. 4298/1993 has been filed by State wherein the said award was challenged mainly on the ground that there was no dispute before the conciliation officer for oral termination of the workman in June, 1974, therefore, the Government has acted beyond the dispute raised before the Conciliation Officer and, therefore, the reference is bad in law. Otherwise also, the dispute is not an industrial dispute, instead it is an individual dispute, which is not covered by Section 2-K of the Act. The oral termination was of June, 1974 and the workman has claimed continuity of service from 1.6.1974 to 3.5.1982 which was raised at the belated stage on 13.12.1985. Therefore, he is not entitled to get the backwages.

(5). Reply has been filed to the writ petition wherein it is submitted that the reference confer jurisdiction on the Industrial Tribunal and the same cannot be questioned before the Industrial Tribunal and further,the respondents failed to challenge the said r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document