Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1192 (RAJ)

NIRMAL KUMAR SHARMA v. MUNICIPAL BOARD

2002-07-09

S.K.SHARMA

body2002
Judgment S. K. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks to quash the impugned award dated 27/01/1995 passed by learned Labour Court, Bharatpur Camp, alwar, whereby the learned Labour Court has held that the removal of the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. ( 2 ) IN the statement of claim the petitioner averred that he was appointed with effect from 8/04/1983 and continuously performed the duties till 8/05/1984. Vide order dated 8/04/1983 the petitioner was appointed as daily rated employee, but later on from 8/12/1983 he was allowed to work on a vacant post of Naka Guard. The petitioner had worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year. But without following the mandate of Section 25-F of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (for short act, 1947), the petitioner was removed from the services. It is further averred that even after removal of petitioner some new persons were engaged by the respondents without offering the appointment to the petitioner. ( 3 ) THE reply to the statement of claim was submitted by respondent-employer denying the allegations made in statement of claim. The learned Labour Court recorded the statement of petitioner as well as the representative of respondent and observed that the petitioner failed to establish that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. ( 4 ) I have reflected over the rival submissions and scanned the material on record. Learned Labour Court critically examined the evidence discussed by the parties and observed that the petitioner, has worked for more than 240 days against the vacant post of naka Guard and he was removed from the services without following the mandate of section 25-F of the Act, 1947. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has also placed on record the award dated 26/05/1994 rendered by the same Labour Judge, wherein similarly situated workman Tara Chand sharma was reinstated in the services and his removal order was found illegal by the labour Court. I am unable to understand as to why different yardsticks were applied by the learned Labour Judge, when the facts of both the cases were similar. Be that as it may, i find that the impugned award of the Labour court is illegal, unconstitutional and deserves to be set aside. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, I allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned award dated 27/01/1995. Be that as it may, i find that the impugned award of the Labour court is illegal, unconstitutional and deserves to be set aside. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, I allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned award dated 27/01/1995. I hold that the removal of petitioner from the services was illegal and against the mandate of Section 25-F of the Act, 1947. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in the services with full back wages and continuity of service. The petitioner shall also be entitled to the cost of the writ petition, which is quantified as Rs. 2,000/ -. The respondent-employer shall comply with the order within a period of one month.