Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1278 (RAJ)

Arjun Singh v. Labour Court, Jodhpur

2000-10-18

B.J.SHETHNA

body2000
Honble SHETHNA, J.–All these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment and order as the common question of law is involved in all these petitions. WRIT PETITION NO. 3280/98 ARJUN SINGH VS. LABOUR COURT & ANOTHER (2). Workman Arjun Singh was appointed purely on daily wage basis by an oral order dated 1.1.1988. He continued to work till 31.3.1990. During this period, he had worked at different places like Phalodi, Bhojasar, Lohawat, Osian and Jamba etc. for the purpose of preparing roads. His services were terminated by an oral order dated 1.4.1990. The case of the Department was that he left the job on his own. However, the Labour Court did not accept the case of the Department. It held that the workman worked for more than 240 days and before terminating his services the provisions of Sec. 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act were not followed. It also observed that from the date of his termination i.e. 31.3.1990 till passing of the award i.e. 27.8.1998 period of more than 8 1/2 years have passed and during that period he had learnt other work, therefore, the learned Judge was of the opinion that even if the workman was to be reinstated in services then also he could have been reinstated on daily wage basis, where he would be entitled to get only Rs. 32/-per day and the entire experience which he has got at other place during this long period of more than 8 1/2 years would simply be wasted. (3). It also considered the several judgments of Honble Supreme Court on this point of reinstatement of a person whose services were terminated while working on daily wage basis and thought it fit not to reinstate the workman in service and award back wages and other benefits of services in view of the aforesaid facts and awarded Rs. 17, 000/-as compensation in lieu of reinstatement with back wages. For that the learned Judge has relied upon the following decisions of Honble Supreme Court : (1) Surjeet Ghosh vs. UCO Bank (1); (ii) Rohalsan Johaan vs. Central Industrial Tribunal (2); (iii) Rajwant Singh Rewat vs. The District Food and Supplies Controller, Firozpur and Others (3); (iv) Giddaba Cooperative Marketing cum Processing Society Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (4); (v) Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and others vs. Muluamara (5). In his award, the learned Judge has reproduced the important observations made by the Honble Supreme Court in case of Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union vs. Delhi Administration (6), which reads as under:- ``Apart from the fact that the petitioners cannot be directed to be regularised for the reasons given above, we may take note of the pernicious consequences to which the direction for regularisation of workmen on the only ground that they have put in work for 240 or more days, has been leading. Although there is Employment Exchange Act which required recruitment on the basis of registration in the Employment Exchange. It has become a common practice to ignore the Employment Exchange and the persons registered in the Employment Exchanges, and the employ and get employed directly those who are either not registered with the Employment Exchange or who though registered are lower in the long waiting list in the Employment Exchange Register. The courts can take judicial notice of the fact that such employment is sought and given directly for various illegal considerations including money. The employment is given first for temporary period with technical breaks to circumvent the relevant rules, and is continued for 240 or more days with a view to give the benefit of regularisation knowing the judicial trend that those who have completed 240 or more days are directed to be automatically regularised. A good deal of illegal employment market has developed resulting in a new source of corruption and frustration of those who are waiting at the Employment Exchanges for years. Not all those who gain such back-door entry in the employment are in need of the particular jobs for better and secured prospects. That is why most of the cases which come to the courts are of employment in Government Department, Public Undertakings or Agencies. Ultimately, it is the people who bear the heavy burden of the surplus labour. The other equally injurious effect of indiscriminate regularisation has been that many of the agencies have stopped under taking casual or temporary works though they are urgent and essential for fear that is those who are employed on such works are required to be continued for 240 or more days have to be absorbed as regular employees although the works are time bound and there is no need for the workmen beyond the completion of the works undertaken. The public interests are thus jeopardised on both counts. WRIT PETITION NO. 3116/99 (2) KHAN MOHD. VS. LABOUR COURT & ANR. (4). Workman Khan Mohd. was also appointed by on oral order dated 1.1.93 purely on daily wage basis as casual labour. His services were also terminated by oral order dated 31.10.1993. During this short period of less than one year he had worked at different places like Kuchera, Gaju, Ran, Khajwana, Mirjas and Chelera ki Dhani etc. on water supply schemes. Like Arjun Singhs case, the Labour Court relying upon the several Supreme Courts Judgments and quoting the aforesaid paragraph from Delhi Horticulture Employees Union case (supra) awarded a compensation of Rs. 14, 000/-instead of passing an order of reinstatement with back wages in favour of wrokman. WRIT PETITION NO. 3121/99 (3) REWAT RAM VS. LABOUR COURT & ORS. (5). Workman Rewat Ram was employed by an oral order dated 1.4.1993 purely on daily wage basis. He worked till 30.11.1993 and his services were also terminated by oral order dated 1.12.1993. During this short period of less than one year he was employed on the lift canal. Like cases of Arjun Singh and Khan Mohd., the Labour Court awarded compensation of Rs. 13, 000/-instead of passing the order of reinstatement with back wages in favour of the workman. WRIT PETITION NO. 2266/99 (4) KHINV SINGH VS. LABOUR COURT & ANR. (6). Case of workman Khinv Singh was that initially he was appointed on the post of Cattle Guard on daily wage basis on 1.2.1980, but his services were terminated in February, 1984. He raised industrial dispute, wherein, agreement was arrived at between the parties on 11.9.1987 and accordingly he was reinstated in services from 1.10.1987. Once again after giving him artificial break in service, he was reinstated in service from 1.12.1992. He continued till 12.10.1993. On that day i.e. 12.10.1993, his services were terminated. During that period he had worked for 240 days. Like the cases of Arjun Singh, Khan Mohd. and Rewat Ram, the Labour Court relying upon the various judgments of the Honble Supreme Court and quoting the relevant portion of the Honble Supreme Court Judgment from Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union (supra) awarded only compensation of Rs. 12, 500/-instead of passing an award of reinstatement with back wages in favour of workman. (7). and Rewat Ram, the Labour Court relying upon the various judgments of the Honble Supreme Court and quoting the relevant portion of the Honble Supreme Court Judgment from Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union (supra) awarded only compensation of Rs. 12, 500/-instead of passing an award of reinstatement with back wages in favour of workman. (7). Awards passed on 27.8.1998, 28.5.1999, 14.5.1999 and 3.4.1999, respectively, have been challenged by petitioners-workmen Arjun Singh, Khan Mohd., Rewat Ram and Khinv Singh in aforesaid petitions. WRIT PETITION NO. 4124/99 (5) THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, PALI VS. KHINV SINGH AND ANOTHER. (8). The Deputy Chief Conservator of Forest has filed this petition no. 4124/99 against the award dated 3.4.1999 passed by the Labour Court awarding compensation of Rs. 12,500/-to the workman Khinv Singh. (9). This petition is required to be dismissed without going into the legality and validity of the award passed by the Labour Court on the ground that compensation amount awarded to the respondent workman is a small amount of Rs. 12, 500/-, therefore, this court will not interfere with such award in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, particularly when this Court is not inclined to accept the counter writ petition of workman Khinv Singh. Hence, this petition filed by Deputy Chief Conservator of Forest is required to be dismissed. (10). It must be stated that several writ petitions of this nature were dismissed by me sitting as a Single Judge, where the Labour Court while declaring the termination of a workman bad, refused to pass the order of reinstatement with back wages and ordered only compensation. Similarly, sitting in a Division Bench with my learned brother S.K. Garg, J several special appeals filed by the workman challenging such type of awards passed by the Labour Court and the orders passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing writ petitions were also dismissed. Therefore, all these petitions were also required to be dismissed. (11). However, learned counsel Shri Vijay Mehta submitted that sitting in a Division Bench, I have taken different view in case of Dharamveer Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (7) decided on 11.10.2000 and ordered reinstatement of workman. (12). It is true that in Dharamveer Singhs case (supra) while speaking for the Division Bench, the award passed by the Labour Court awarding compensation of Rs. (12). It is true that in Dharamveer Singhs case (supra) while speaking for the Division Bench, the award passed by the Labour Court awarding compensation of Rs. 20, 000/-to the workman was modified and order of reinstatement of workman in service with all other benefits of service, except back wages, was passed. But, the same was passed on facts of that case, which are as under: ``Workman-Dharamveer Singh was duly selected and by written order dated 2.4.1985 he was appointed on the post of Helper initially for a period of three months, however, his services were continued till 31.12.1986 without any interruption. His appointment was against the permanent post. Alongwith him, several other persons were appointed and their services were continued but only services of Dharamveer Singh were terminated and that too by an oral order dated 1.1.1987 without giving any notice. A complaint was filed by Dharamveer Singh on 15.11.1991 and conciliation proceedings took place before the conciliation officer and after the failure report was submitted, the reference was made by the State Govt. to the Labour Court in 1994. It was clearly found by the Labour Court in its award that Dharamveer Singh had worked for more than 240 days during the period from 2.4.1985 to 31.12.1986 and his oral termination was clearly found to be in violation of Sec. 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court also observed that alongwith Dharamveer Singh many others were appointed but they were continued and only services of Dharamveer Singh were terminated that too by an oral order. In spite of that, the Labour Court on the ground of delay in passing the award, awarded compensation of Rs. 20, 000/-and refused reinstatement with back wages. Dharamveer Singhs case (supra) was clearly covered by the latest Judgment of Honble Supreme Court in case of Management of M.C.D. vs. Prem Chand Gupta, reported in (AIR 2000 SC page 454), wherein, the Honble Supreme Court passed the order of reinstatement of workman without back wages after a passage of 33 years of termination. (13). On the peculiar facts and circumstances of Dharamveer Singhs case (supra) the Division Bench of this Court was fully convinced that his appointment was not a back-door entry in the service. His appointment was made after due selection. Other employees appointed alongwith him were continued in services. (13). On the peculiar facts and circumstances of Dharamveer Singhs case (supra) the Division Bench of this Court was fully convinced that his appointment was not a back-door entry in the service. His appointment was made after due selection. Other employees appointed alongwith him were continued in services. But in a most arbitrary manner the services of Dharamveer Singh were terminated by an oral order. Under the circumstances the award passed by the Labour Court awarding compensation of Rs. 20,000/-was modified by us and the respondents were directed to reinstate the workman in service as Helper without back wages in view of the Honble Supreme Court judgment in Prem Chand Guptas case (supra). (14). Thus, the argument advanced by Shri Mehta for the workman in all the cases that the same Division Bench has taken different view in case of Dharamveer Singhs case (supra) therefore, sitting as a Single Judge I cannot take different view of the matter is without any substance. It cannot be accepted for the simple reason that fact of Dharamveer Singhs case were totally different and not at all applicable to the facts of the cases on hand. (15). Before parting, I must state that just a day before i.e. on 10.10.2000 the same Division Bench dismissed another D.B. Civil Special Appeal no. 738/2000 filed by workman-Moola Ram against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing writ petition filed against the award passed by the Labour Court awarding compensation of Rs. 28, 000/-instead of reinstatement with back wages as the workman Moola Ram had worked only for a short period from February, 1990 to April, 1991 as `Chowkidar on daily wage basis as an unskilled labour. (16). In that case of Moola Ram also the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Prem Chand Guptas case (supra) was considered by the Division Bench and it was held that the same was not applicable on facts of that case. And, accordingly the special appeal filed by workman Moola Ram was dismissed by the Division Bench. (17). Thus, in my considered opinion, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Preem Chand Guptas case (supra) cannot be followed mechanically. Each case has to be decided on its own facts. And, accordingly the special appeal filed by workman Moola Ram was dismissed by the Division Bench. (17). Thus, in my considered opinion, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Preem Chand Guptas case (supra) cannot be followed mechanically. Each case has to be decided on its own facts. I have already narrated brief facts of all the cases on hand and at the cost of repetition I may state that Prem Chand Guptas case (supra) is not applicable. (18). I have refrained myself from dealing with other cases cited by both Mr. Mehta for the petitioners and Mr. R.P. Vyas for the respondents because in my considered opinion the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union (supra) squarely applies against the workman-petitioners and it was rightly relied upon by the Labour Court while passing the awards. (19). In view of the above discussion, all these petitions including writ petition no. 4124/99 filed by Deputy Chief Conservator of Forest fail and are hereby dismissed.