CW1580/1998

// 1 //

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

ORDER

IN

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1580/1998

With

Stay Application No.1269/1998

Rajasthan

Dairy

Vikas

Nigam

Federation Limited, at present

known as Rajasthan Cooperative

Dairy Federation Limited through

its Managing Director, Jaipur Vs.

Avinash Sharma and Others

Date of Order ::: 15.05.2014

Present

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq

Shri K.N. Gupta and

Shri Anil Tiwari, counsel for petitioner

Shri D.K. Dixit for

Shri A.K. Bajpai, counsel for respondents

####

By the Court:-

This writ petition has been filed by

petitioner, namely, Rajasthan Dairy Vikas Nigam

Federation Limited, presently known as Rajasthan

Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited, assailing the

award of the Labour Court, Jaipur, dated 18.11.1997

in Case No.LCR198/1984.

An industrial dispute was raised before the

Labour Court on the question whether the action of

the Managing Director, Rajasthan State Dairy Vikas

Nigam Federation Limited, Jaipur, in removing the

services of workmen, namely, Shri Shivraj Singh, Har

Chandra, Ram Chandra, Babu Lal, Meva Ram, Mangla

Ram, Avinash Sharma, Gopal Singh, Balveer Singh,

Dashrath Singh, Bajrang Singh, Nawal Singh, Parasram

and Kanhaiyalal, who are represented by the

President, Rajasthan State Dairy Vikas Nigam

CW1580/1998

// 2 //

Karamchari Sangh, Jaipur, was just and valid? If

not, what relief and amount are they entitled to

receive? The Labour Court answered the reference in

favour of the workman holding them entitled to

reinstatement with continuity in service but

granting only a sum of Rs.5000/- towards full back

wages, upto the date of award and thereafter holding

them entitled to daily wages. However, it was

further held that there remains no dispute with

regard to rest of the workman, namely, Shivraj

Singh, Har Chandra, Ram Chandra, Babu Lal, Meva Ram,

Mangla Ram, Dashrath Singh, Parasram and

Kanhaiyalal.

Shri K.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the

petitioner management argued that the Labour Court

failed to appreciate that Avinash Sharma never

worked on the post Fitter nor he possessed with the

qualification of having passed the I.lT.I.

Certificate, therefore his claim that he worked as

Fitter and was entitled to reinstatement on the

post, was completely false. The date of appointment

of other employees, other than Avinash Sharma, has

been shown to be January, 1981, which is also

incorrect. They were engaged in February, 1982 on

daily wages basis and they worked only up to June,

1982. The Labour Court therefore erred in law in

holding that there was no proof to hold that they

served for continuous 240 days in a calendar year

preceding the date of their removal.

It is argued that in so far as Avinash Sharma

is concerned, he himself has stated in his statement

CW1580/1998

// 3 //

of claim as well as affidavit that he was engaged

for the first time on 23.11.1981 as daily wages

Fitter and his services were terminated on

01.07.1982. The total period of his working was thus

only seven months and eight days, which is

admittedly far less than 240 days. Even then the

Labour Court held that he could be given benefit of

Section25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for

short, 'the ID Act') on the ground that certain

labourers were engaged on daily wages even after his

removal. It is submitted that Section 25G of the ID

Act would not be applicable to the case of Avinash

Sharma because he was engaged as a Fitter and not an

ordinary Labourer. Besides, Shri Avinash Sharma has

not named anybody who was alleged engaged after his

removal or who was retained in service when he was

removed from service. He has also not given name of

any of his junior who was retained in service at the

time of his discontinuation. No such assertion has

been