Back
2009 Supreme(Raj) 326
[Citation : 2009(4) RLW 3117 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Suptd. Engg., P.W.D. Vs. Judge Labour Court, Jaipur (Asopa, J.)
HON'BLE PREM SHANKER ASOPA, J.
Suptd. Engineer P.W.D. & Ors.
Versus
The Judge, Labour Court, Jaipur & Anr.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1884 of 1995, decided on 26.02.2009
M. Faisal Baig, Dy Government Counsel, for Petitioner;
V.K. Mathur and C.S. Meena, for Respondents.
Headnote:Service Matter and Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Secs. 25-F & 25-G; Rajasthan Famine Relief Works Employees (Exemption From Labour Laws) Act, 1964, Secs. 3 & 25-J; Constitution of India, Arts. 14 & 16 — Termination from service — Termination declared illegal — Award of Labour Court — Reinstatement with continuity of service with all back wages — Respondent was working in Famine Relief Works — Applicability of Industrial Disputes Act challenged — Held — Provisions of the 1964 Act would not apply in respect of workmen who are covered by Chapter 5-A — If the same is applied it would be violative of Arts. 14 & 16 and contrary to the provisions of Sec. 25-J according to which the provisions which are more beneficial to the workmen would apply — Operation of award was stayed on 26.5.1995 and no application filed by respondent under Sec. 17-B, therefore, it is proper that petitioner be reinstated with continuity of service and he will be entitled for 50 per cent back wages — Neither the Act of 1964 nor the notification issued thereunder would apply for this additional reasons — Award of labour Court modified. (Paras 13, 14 & 15)
Petition partly allowed.
lsok ekeys o vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947] /kkjk 25-p o 25-N( jktLFkku vdky jkgr dk;Z esa fyIr deZpkjh ¼Jefof/k ls NqV½ vf/kfu;e] 1964] /kkjk 3 ,oa 25-´( Hkkjr dk lafo/kku] vuqPNsn 14 ,oa 16 & lsok ls gVk;k tkuk & gVk;k tkuk voS/k ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k & Je U;k;ky; dk iapkV & lHkh fiNyh etnwjh lfgr lsok dh fujarjrk ds lkFk iqu% LFkkiuk & izfroknh vdky jkgr dk;Z esa dk;Z dj jgk Fkk & vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh ykxwrk dks pqukSrh & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & 1964 ds vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ml deZdkj ds lEcU/k esa ykxw ugha gksxsa tks v/;k; 5-d }kjk vkPNkfnr gS & ;fn mls ykxw fd;k tkrk gS rks ;g vuqPNsn 14 ,oa 16 dk vfrØe.k ;skX; gksxk ftlds vuqlkj izko/kku tks deZdkj ds fy, vf/kd ykHkdkjh gS ykxw gksaxs & iapkV dk fØ;kUo;u 26-5-1995 dks LFkfxr fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj izfroknh }kjk /kkjk 17-[k ds vUrxZr vkosnu isk ugha fd;k x;k vr% ;g mfpr gS fd izkFkhZ dks lsok dh fujUrjrk ds lkFk iqu%LFkkfir fd;k tkos vkSj og 50 izfrkr fiNyh etnwjh ds fy, gdnkj gksxk & u vf/kfu;e 1964 u gh blds vUrxZr tkjh vf/klwpuk bl vfrfjDr dkj.kksa gsrq ykxw gksaxs & Je U;k;ky; dk iapkV lakksf/kr fd;kA ¼in la[;k 13] 14 ,o 15½
;kfpdk vakr% LohdkjA
Hon'ble ASOPA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this writ petition the petitioners-State has challenged the award of the labour Court dated 27.6.1994 (Annexure/6) whereby the respondent No. 2 who was working in Femine Relief works has been reinstated whose termination has been declared illegal and void on account of non-compliance of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and further he has been granted the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service with all back wages.
3. The fact relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy is that the respondent-workman was appointed on 1.10.1987 and has worked upto 30.11.1988 in the Femine Relief Works.
4. The submission of counsel for the petitioners-State is that the Femine Relief Works is exempted from the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on account of framing of the enactment of the State called as the Rajasthan Femine Relief Works Employees (Exemption from Labour Laws) Act, 1964 (for short Act of 1964) as well as notification issued in May 1988 before terminating the services of the respondent No. 2.
5. Counsel for the petitioners-State further submits that the labour Court has not considered the provisions of the Act of 1964 and further misconstrued the provisions of the notification issued on May 1988 by saying that the appointment of the respondent No. 2 was on a prior date.
6. The legal submission of counsel for the respondent No. 2 is that the Act of 1964 as well as notification issued on May 1988 would not apply in view of the decision of the Full Bench majority judgment dated 12th of March 1984 passed in F.B.C.W.P. No. 1108/1982 and 38 other writ petitions titled as Bhanwar Lal etc. etc. vs. R.S.R.T.C. & Anr. (121) reported in RLR 1984 Page 619 and the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 19.1.1989 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1204/1987 and 18 other writ petitions titled as Sheesh Ram vs. The Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. & Ors. wherein it has been held that in view of Section 25-J, the provisions of the Act of 1964 would not apply. He further submits that equally the notification will not apply and in case the same are applied then the same would be violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India as held in the aforesaid judgment.
7. I have considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and gone through the contents of the writ petition.
8. Although the labour Court has not considered the provisions of Rajasthan Femine Relief Works Employees (Exemption from Labour Laws) Act, 1964 and notification issued on May 1988 whereby the Femine Relief Works has been exempted from the provisions of labour laws.
9. Before proceeding further it would be relevant to refer the Section 3 of the Act of 1964 which is as follows:-
The Rajasthan Femine Relife Works Employees (exemption from Labour Laws) Act, 1964.
1........
2........
3. Labour laws not to apply femine relief works etc.,-
Notwithstanding anything contained in any - labour law, no such law shall apply nor the same shall be deemed ever to have applied any matter covered by any such law.
4. Bar of cognizance of courts.- (1) As from the commencement of this Act, no court shall take cognizance of any matter in respect of any employee of the femine relief works under labour law.
(2) All proceedings instituted by or on behalf of or for the benefit or any employee of the femine relief works pending in any court under any labour law at the date of commencement of this Act shall be void and dismissed.
(3) Any order, decision or award given by any court, under any labour law after the commencement of this Act shall cases to have legal force,
(4) any right or claim, whether accrued due or otherwise, under any such law shall become unenforceable.
(5) Power to amend the schedule: the State Government may, by notification in the official gazette and with he previous approval of the Central Govt., add to or delete from, the schedule, any enactment relating to labour.
(6) Repeal : The
