Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1127 (RAJ)

Balu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2002-07-01

D.N.JOSHI, RAJESH BALIA

body2002
Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge in modifying the award passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur on April 26, 1994 by allowing the back wages with effect from the date of making of reference instead of from the date of termination of services. 2. The facts of the case are, as found by the Tribunal, that the appellant was appointed, in the first instance, temporary in place of deceased employee Deva Ram as his dependent son on compassionate ground on October 14, 1986. This order dated October 14, 1986 by giving him appointment against the available vacant post, was cancelled without notice and his service was first converted into appointment as daily rated workman by a subsequent order dated February 1, 1987. Finally, on June 2, 1988 his services were terminated. The respondent State has pleaded that his services were not terminated, but he has voluntarily absented himself from duty. Be that as it may, the Labour Court found that since workman has already completed 2 years services on workcharged establishment, he became entitled to semi-permanent status. Termination of services on June 2, 1988 were in violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and retrenchment was invalid. The plea of voluntary abandonment was not accepted. He also noticed that there is no hitus between the termination of services and raising of dispute about illegal termination and reference was made on June 8, 1990 of the industrial dispute ordered reinstatement with full back wages with effect from the date of termination of service which is ordinarily as a rule, relief granted when retrenchment is found to be invalid. Against the award dated April 26, 1994 the employer preferred a writ petition and the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition by the following order: “After hearing Mr. P.P. Dave learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Gehlot for the Respondent No. 1 and considering the Judgment of this Court in Union of India vs. Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3407/1997 decided on July 29, 1998, the impugned award dated July 25, 1998, is modified only to the extent that the respondent workman shall be entitled for back wages from June 8, 1980, the date of reference with these observations the petition stands disposed of” 3. It is apparent that award has been modified by learned single Judge in respect of back wages by reducing the back wages with effect from the date of making of reference instead of from the date of termination of services without assigning any reason for such modification. 4. It was urged by the appellant that the award was otherwise found to be in accordance with principles of industrial adjudication as there was no error apparent on the face of record and the relief granted by the Labour Court was in accordance with law laid down by the Supreme Court. As per finding of the Labour Court itself the workman was not negligent in raising dispute about illegal termination, but has acted promptly. The award of Labour Court could not have been interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction. 5. It is true that in given circumstances the workman may not be given reinstatement even where retrenchment is found to be invalid and also while reinstatement and back wages may be reduced or denied. But, these are exceptions to ordinary rule that where retrenchment is found to be invalid reinstatement with full back wages follows. While granting reinstatement or denial of full back wages, the special circumstances must be shown to exist and such reason must find place in order. 6. Our attention was invited to recent decision of the Supreme Court in Vikramaditya Pandey vs. Industrial Tribunal 2001-I-LLJ-701 (SC). It was a case in which Tribunal after holding enquiry and on the basis of evidence found that the termination of services by the employer-appellant before the Supreme Court, was by way of retrenchment and was contrary to the provisions of U.P Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But, the Tribunal found that as per the U.P Co-operative Societies Employees’ Service Regulations, 1975 he could not be reinstated in service as a regular employee because of the prohibition emanating from Regulations. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded only retrenchment compensation with 12% interest for the relevant period. Reinstatement was denied. 7. Aggrieved with the award of the Tribunal, the workmen preferred a writ petition before the High Court. The State has not challenged the invalidity of retrenchment. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal that it was a case of retrenchment but was of the opinion that no interference is called for with the award passed by the Tribunal. 8. 7. Aggrieved with the award of the Tribunal, the workmen preferred a writ petition before the High Court. The State has not challenged the invalidity of retrenchment. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal that it was a case of retrenchment but was of the opinion that no interference is called for with the award passed by the Tribunal. 8. TheSupreme Court, reversing the decision of the High Court held that where there is conflict between the industrial dispute and two enactments referred to above, the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were to prevail. The Court observed that ordinarily once the termination of service of an employee is held to be wrongful or illegal the normal relief of reinstatement with full back wages shall be available to an employee. It is open to the employer to specifically plead and establish that there were special circumstances which warranted either non- reinstatement or non-payment of back-wages. 9. In the light of aforesaid case, we find that no special circumstances have been pleaded by the employer for the granting of the ordinary relief nor any such finding recorded by the learned single Judge to deviate from normal relief to be granted where retrenchment is found to be invalid. The Tribunal has granted such relief by finding that there was no fault on the part of the employee in pursuing the remedies. 10. Moreover, one aspect of the matter that is lost sight of is that workman was employed in the first instance on compassionate ground as dependent of his father, who died while in service in these circumstances, in the first instance altering his status after making an appointment in regular establishment to a daily rated workman and then to terminate his service is an act of arbitrariness and unreasonableness (sic). 11. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that interference with the award made by the Labour Court was uncalled for. The Judgment of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained. The Judgment under appeal is set aside and the award of the Labour Court is restored in its totality.