HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5350/2022

1.

Managing Director, Dausa Kendriya Sahakari Bank

Limited, Sahkar Bhawan, Khan Bhankari, Road, Dausa

Through Its Officer In-Charge.

2.

Branch Manager, Dausa Kendriya Sahakari Bank Limited,

Branch Mahua, Dausa.

----Petitioners

Versus

Jalsingh Gurjar S/o Shri Radha Kishan, R/o Village And Post

Office Ronsi Tehsil Nadoti District Karauli.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Vibhor Sharma.

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

07/04/2022

1.

Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners

(hereinafter to be referred as ‘Employer’) challenging the Award

dated 06.12.2021 passed by the learned Labour Court, No.2,

Jaipur in Case No.LCR 01/2011 whereby a lumpsum compensation

of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded in favour of the respondent

(hereinafter to be referred as ‘workman’) in lieu of

reinstatement.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the workman in his statement

of claim averred that he was engaged as Class-IV/Peon by the

employer on 21.07.2005 and he continuously worked upto

31.07.2009 and for this period he was regularly being paid

Rs.3000/- per month. It was further stated by him that he has

(2 of 5)

[CW-5350/2022]

continuously worked for 240 days in each year upto the period of

4 years. However, without giving one month’s prior notice or any

amount in lieu thereof his services were illegally terminated on

01.08.2009 which is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as the

Act, 1947). It was further stated by him that the person junior to

him has been retained while services of the workman have been

terminated and in his place new person has been engaged, which

is in violation of the provisions of the Act, 1947.

3.

The employer filed reply to the statement of claim and while

denying the averments made by the workman in the statement of

claim disputed workman’s engagement for the period from 2005

to 2009 and also denied about his working for a continuous period

of 240 days in a calendar year. It was also stated that there had

been no relationship of employer and employee between the

parties. It was further stated that since the workman was never

engaged by them, as such no question arises for paying any salary

and deducting any PF therefrom. It was also stated that the

provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act, 1947 are not

applicable and lastly prayed that the claim of the workman be

rejected.

4.

The workman in support of his case submitted his own

affidavit, which was cross-examined by the employer and the

workman produced the documentary evidence as W.1 to W.12 in

support of his claim. From the side of the employer the affidavit of

one Mahaveer Prasad Sharma, Manager (Administration) was

submitted, which was cross-examined by the workman and in the

form of documentary evidence Ex.M1 was produced.

(3 of 5)

[CW-5350/2022]

5.

The learned Labour Court after hearing the parties and

considering the material on record arrived to a conclusion that the

workman had worked for a continuous period of 240 days,

however in lieu of reinstatement awarded a lumpsum

compensation of Rs.50,000/- vide award dated 06.12.2021, which

has been challenged by the employer by filing the present writ

petition.

6.

Counsel for the employer submitted that the workman had

not worked for a continuous period of 240 days in a calendar year

and therefore his alleged retrenchment does not attract the

provisions of Section 25F of the Act, 1947. Counsel further

submits that the burden to prove the fact of his continuous

working for 240 days lies on the workman which the workman

failed to prove even then the learned Labour Court has awarded

compensation to the workman. Counsel furt