Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan vs Ram Charan

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(SC) 519

2006(6) Supreme 407
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Rajasthan High Court)
AR. Lakshmanan and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan—Appellant
versus
Ram Charan—Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 8124 of 2004
Decided on 19-5-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ms. Madhurima Tatia, A. Aruneshwar Gupta, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ajay Chaudhary, Nimish Gupta, Ashish Thakur, Chetan Gupta, Advocates.

Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947—Section 25F—Termination of service—Respondent appointed initially on muster roll as a Pump Driver on temporary basis worked upto 12-12-1984 and then for 21 and 26 days in months of May and June, 1985 under appellant—Application before Conciliation Officer dt. 29-6-1986 that services were terminated w.e.f. 1-11-1985—Industrial dispute reference—Claim of workman was contested on ground that respondent had worked for 197 days only—Labour Court made award in favour of workman finding that there was violation of Section 25(F) of the Act and held respondent entitled to reinstatement with 25% back wages—Writ petition filed against award was dismissed holding that presumption made by Labour Court in respect of 240 days work rendered by respondent was correct—Writ appeal was dismissed on ground of laches as filed after delay of 321 days—Appeal—No discussion about merits of rival contentions was made by Division Bench—Division Bench was not correct in affirming the presumption made by Labour Court regarding 240 days of service rendered by respondent without adverting to material placed before it—A non-speaking order passed by Division Bench was not sustainable and matter needed to be remitted.
Held : The learned Judges of the Division Bench dismissed the appeal on the ground of laches in approaching the High Court by 321 days. However, the High Court also dismissed the appeal on the ground that there was no merit therein. A perusal of the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, goes to show that there is absolutely no discussion about the merit of the rival contentions made by the parties. The Division Bench, in our view, is not justified in dismissing the appeal on merit without having discussed the merits of the rival claims. The order passed by the Division Bench, in our view, is not sustainable as it is not a speaking order. The High Court also dismissed the appeal by holding that the Labour Court was right in directing the reinstatement of the respondent in service with 25% back-wages, without even adverting to the grounds raised in the appeal challenging the said direction. Likewise, the Division Bench is also not correct in affirming the presumption made by the Labour Court regarding 240 days of service rendered by the respondent, without adverting to the material placed before it by the parties.(Para 12)
Since the order of the Division Bench is not a speaking one, we set aside the same and remit the matter to the Division Bench of the High Court for fresh disposal and passing a speaking order after hearing the respective parties.(Para 13)

JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.—Heard Ms. Madhurima Tatia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Ajay Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 28.1.2004 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 85/2004, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant herein.

3. The respondent was appointed initially on muster roll as a Pump Driver, on temporary basis, with the appellant. According to the appellant, the respondent had worked upto 12.12.1984 from his initial date of employment and also worked in the month of May and June, 1985 for 21 days and 26 days respectively, under the appellant. The respondent left the service from 1.11.1985 without informing the appellant. As such the respondent has rendered a total number of 197 days of service under the appellant as per the muster roll produced before the Labour Court.

4. The respondent filed an application dated 29.6.1986 before the Conciliation Officer alleging that he was terminated from service w.e.f. 1.11.1985 without any notice. The appellant filed a reply to the said application controverting the said allegation by producing the muster roll of the respondent which established the respondent having rendered only 197 days of service with the appellant. The Conciliation Officer vide order dated 29.5.1988 rejected the application of the respondent on the basis of muster-roll, produced by the appellant, from July to December, 1984 and May and June, 1985, establishing total number of 197 days of work by the respondent.

5. The respondent challenged the said order of the Conciliation Officer before the High Court, in Writ Petition No. 2988 of 1988, seeking his reinstatement in service with the appellant. The High Court vide its order dated 21.1.1992 dismissed the said writ petition of the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent again moved an application before the Conciliation Officer whereupon the Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report of conciliation to the Government of Rajasthan, which lead to reference of industrial dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. The reference made to the Labour Court is reproduced herein :

“Whether service of the Claimant Ram Charan as a Pump Driver terminated from 1.11.1985 by the Asstt. Engineer, PHED, Sub-Division, Mahua, Sawai Madhopur, is legal and justified, If no, what relief the Claimant is entitled for”

6. Thereafter, in pursuance of the notice by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, the respondent filed a Statement of Claim alleging that he had worked under the appellant from 14.7.1984 to 1.11.1985, however, his service was terminated from 1.11.1985 without giving one month’s notice or salary in lieu of notice, compensation in violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act” for short). The respondent also alleged violation of Sections 25(G) and (H) of the Act thereby terminating his services on the basis of having rendered service for more than 240 days in a year.

7. The appellant filed a reply to the Statement of Claim of the respondent denying the said allegations and pointing out the rejection of the application by the Conciliation Officer, vide order dated 19.5.1988, on the basis of false assertion of the respondent of having worked for more than 240 days in a year contrary to the actual 197 days of work rendered by him.

8. The Labour Court vide its order dated 16.12.1999 made an award in favour of the respondent and against the appellant, finding that there was violation of Section 25(F) of the Act and declaring the termination of the respondent as illegal and unjustified and that the respondent was entitled for reinstatement with continuity in service, with 25% back-wages. The Labour Court, however, did not find violation of Sections 25(G) and 25(H) of the Act.

9. Aggrieved by the Award dated 16.12.1999 of the Labour Court, the appellant filed writ petition, being Civil Writ P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document