Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 74 (RAJ)

Ajeet Singh v. Labour Court

2001-01-16

B.J.SHETHNA, H.R.PANWAR

body2001
Honble SHETHNA, J.–Notice to the respondents. (2). Learned counsel Mr. Mathur, who appeared for the respondents before the learned Single Judge, is directed to accept notice. (3). At the joint request and by the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard and disposed of today itself. (4). Learned counsel Mr. Mehta submitted that against award dated 4.8.98 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur, the appellant/petitioner filed writ petition no. 3215/98. He submitted that the appellant worked from 17.3.92 till his services were terminated as a daily rated workman at the rate of Rs. 22/- per day. The Labour Court found that the workman completed more than 240 days in a calender year. However, instead of passing the order of reinstatement in service with back wages, the Labour Court has awarded only Rs. 9,000/- by way of compensation in lieu of retrenchment. Mr. Mehta submitted that once the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the termination was bad, then it should have ordered reinstatement with back wages and not mere compensation of Rs. 9,000/-. (5). He further submitted that between the same employer and the other workman, the services of the other workman was terminated wherein also the Labour Court Jodhpur by its order dated 4.8.98 awarded compensation of Rs. 9,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and the said award was set aside by another Single Judge (Honble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.) on 12.3.2000 in writ petition no. 3206/98 (1) and the workman was ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity of service with 40% back wages from the date of reference till the date of award. He submitted that the said judgment of Honble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. was cited by him before the learned Single Judge (Honble Mr. Rajesh Balia, J.) but for the reasons best known to the learned Single Judge, he has not dealt with the same in his order. He also submitted that against the order passed by Honble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J., the respondent employer filed D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 476/2000 which was dismissed. (6). In ordinary circumstances, we would have directed Mr. Rajesh Balia, J.) but for the reasons best known to the learned Single Judge, he has not dealt with the same in his order. He also submitted that against the order passed by Honble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J., the respondent employer filed D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 476/2000 which was dismissed. (6). In ordinary circumstances, we would have directed Mr. Mehta to approach the learned Single Judge by way of review of his Lordships order that though the aforesaid judgment was cited, but the same was not considered and dealt with in the order, as per the Supreme Court judgment in case of State of Maharastra vs. Ramdas Shriniwas Nayak (2) but Mr. Mehta, who is a senior counsel of this Court, stated that the aforesaid judgment of Honble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. was cited by him before the learned Single Judge in presence of learned counsel Mr. Mathur for respondents and the copy of the same was also given to Mr. Mathur. Therefore, considering the fact that the appellant is a poor workman and he would be unnecessarily driven from pillar to post by asking him to first file review petition before the learned Single Judge, we though it fit to call Mr. Mathur for the respondents who appeared for the respondents before the learned Single Judge and ask him as to whether the statement made at the bar by learned counsel Mr. Mehta that he had cited the judgment of Honble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. before the learned Single Judge was true of not? To this, Mr. Mathur in clear terms stated that the aforesaid judgment was cited in this presence before the learned Single Judge. Inspite of it, the same was not considered in the judgment. Under the circumstances, there is no other option for this Court but to accept this special appeal. (7). Before parting, we must state that when the judgment of the coordinate bench of this Court is cited beofre the learned Single Judge, then atleast it should have been considered and dealt with. If the learned Single Judge is not agreeing with the view taken by the other Single Judge, then he could have referred the matter to the larger bench but not to consider the judgment, though cited, would not be proper at all. (8). If the learned Single Judge is not agreeing with the view taken by the other Single Judge, then he could have referred the matter to the larger bench but not to consider the judgment, though cited, would not be proper at all. (8). We must state that in recent past, we have come across such type of grievance made by the learned counsel for the parties, that though the judgments of coordinate benches are cited before the learned Judges, they are not at all dealt with in their judgments which is most unfortunate situation. This unnecessarily adds to the backlog of thousands of cases which are pending before this Court and the parties are forced to bear unnecessarily expenses of appeals. Judicial propriety demands that whenever judgments are cited before the learned Judge, the same must be atleast dealt with in the judgments. (9). In view of the above discussion, this special appeal is allowed, the impugned award dated 4.8.98 passed by the Labour Court ordering compensation of Rs. 9,000/- only to the appellant workman in lieu of the reinstatement with back wages is modified to the extent that the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service as if his services were never terminated but he shall be paid 40% back wages from the date of reference till the date of award. The respondents shall reinstate the appellant/petitioner in service latest by 1.5.2001 and pay the arrears. (10). Accordingly, the writ petition and special appeal filed by the appellant/petitioner is accepted.