Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1247 (RAJ)

Dharamveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2000-10-11

B.J.SHETHNA, SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2000
Honble SHETHNA, J.–Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Vimal Mathur was asked to appear in the matter as earlier he appeared for the respondents on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. (2). At the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, this matter is heard today. (3). Two writ petitions, one filed by Dharamveer Singh being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1704/98 and another filed by Mana Ram being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2604/98 were dismissed by common judgment and order dated 25.8.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Aggrieved of that judgment, the present appellant Dharamveer Singh has filed this special appeal. (4). It is the case of the appellant workman that by an order dated 2.4.1985, after due selection, he was appointed on the post of Helper initially for a period of three months and, thereafter, he continued to work upto 31.12.1986. However, by an oral order dated 1.1.1987 without giving any notice his services were terminated. It is stated at the bar by the learned counsel Shri K.R. Chaudhary for the appellant workman that the complaint was filed by the workman on 15.11.1991 and conciliation proceedings took place before the conciliation officer and after submitting the failure report the State Govt. made a reference to the Labour Court and same was numbered as 67/94. (5). It was pleaded before the Labour Court by the workman that he has worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year and, therefore, oral termination dated 1.1.1987 was in violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. And, therefore, termination order was quashed and set aside and he was reinstated in service with back wages. (6). However, case of the respondent Department was that on his own he left the job. After considering the documentary as well as oral evidence led before him the learned Labour Judge found that the case of the department that workman has left the job of his own cannot be accepted. The Labour Court also found that the workman had worked for more than 240 days with the respondents in one calendar year, therefore, the oral termination order dated 1.1.1987 was in clear violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, it was declared that his termination was bad. The Labour Court also found that the workman had worked for more than 240 days with the respondents in one calendar year, therefore, the oral termination order dated 1.1.1987 was in clear violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, it was declared that his termination was bad. However, instead of passing the order of reinstatement with back wages the Labour Court thought it fit to award compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the workman on the ground that there was a delay on the part of the workman in raising the industrial dispute for which no valid reason was assigned and the conciliation proceedings started only at the end of 1992 or in the beginning of 1993, thus, atleast six years period was taken after the termination order was passed in initiating the conciliation proceedings for which no cause has been shown. (7). It is true that the services of the workman was terminated in January, 1987, but it appears that the dispute was raised for first time in 1991 i.e. within four years. There was a delay on the part of other side in making reference and the reference was registered only in 1994. (8). Ordinarily, when the Labour Court passed an order of compensation while setting aside the termination order, instead of reinstating the workman with back wages, then this Court would not interfere, But, this is an exceptional case wherein, the workman was duly selected and appointed on the post of the Helper. He continuously worked from April, 1985 to December, 1986 and in all he had worked for 636 days. Not only that it has come on record that other employees namely; Shri Dhagla Ram, Madanlal, Jai Ram and Chunnilal posted on the post of Helper alongwith the appellant workman, they were continued in service, but the services of the appellant workman was only terminated and that too by an oral order. In that view of the matter, merely there was a delay of four years it was not proper on the part of the Labour Court to award only compensation of Rs. 20,000/-. (9). However, it was submitted by learned counsel Shri V.K. Mathur that Labour Court was fully justified in not passing the order of reinstatement with back wages because there was an inordinate delay of six years on the part of workman in initiating proceedings before the conciliation officer. 20,000/-. (9). However, it was submitted by learned counsel Shri V.K. Mathur that Labour Court was fully justified in not passing the order of reinstatement with back wages because there was an inordinate delay of six years on the part of workman in initiating proceedings before the conciliation officer. He, therefore, submitted that when the Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction then this Court should not interfere with such discretionary orders under Article 227. (10). In case of Management of M.C.D. vs. Prem Chand Gupta and another (1), the Honble Supreme Court passed the order of reinstatement of workman after the passage of 33 years of order of termination. At the cost of repetition, we may state that this is not a case where the Labour Court could have denied reinstatement to the workman only on the ground of delay of six years. Factually also the Labour Court was not right, there was not a delay of six years, but there was a delay of only four years. We all know that in our country when a person is made jobless he would not immediately rush to the Court, he will have to first fight for his survival. In a given case, when we are satisfied that his appointment was not a back door entry and he was appointed after due selection and that other employees appointed alongwith the appellant workman were continued in service and his services were only terminated and that too by an oral order then we feel that the Labour Court ought to have ordered reinstatement of the workman. (11). In view of the above discussion, we are not in a position to agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. (12). Now the question regarding back wages remains. In view of the Honble Supreme Courts judgment in Prem Chand Guptas case (supra), learned counsel Shri Chaudhary for the appellant workman practically conceded that he would not ask for back wages, particularly when it is found by the Labour Court that the workman was able to maintain himself by working somewhere else. (13). In that view of the matter, we modify the award passed by the Labour Court awarding compensation of Rs. (13). In that view of the matter, we modify the award passed by the Labour Court awarding compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and order the respondents to reinstate the appellant workman in service as helper, as if his services were never terminated by oral order of termination dated 1.1.1987. He is granted all other benefits of service except back wages. The respondents shall reinstate the appellant workman in service as early as possible and not later than 31.12.2000. We may make it clear that we have denied back wages to the appellant workman with the hope that the respondents shall comply with the order and reinstate the workman on or before 31.12.2000. (14). Accordingly, this special appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.