Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1753 (RAJ)

STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. CHANDRA KANTA

2002-10-24

S.K.SHARMA

body2002
Judgment S. K. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) LEARNED Labour Court, Kota whereby the reference made to it under Section 10 (l) (g) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 1947 Act) was answered in favour of respondent workman and it was held that retrenchment of the workman w. e. f. 30/05/1983 was illegal and the workman was entitled to be reinstated in the service with continuity of service and 40% of the back wages. Respondent workman submitted statement of claim before the Labour Court, with the averments that she came to be appointed as kuli on January 1, 1977 and after two years was declared semi permanent. The employer vide order dated 30/05/1983 retrenched her services without following the mandates of sections 25-F and 25-G and 9-A of the 1947 act. The employer filed reply to the statement of claim justifying the retrenchment. The employer pleaded that the services of the workman were retrenched in view of Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Employees Service Rules, 1964 (for short 1964 Rules ). Both the parties thereafter submitted affidavits and after hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties learned Labour Court rendered the award as indicated above. ( 2 ) I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the employer vehemently canvassed that there was inordinate delay of eleven years in raising the dispute therefore the dispute could not be the subject-matter of reference under Section 10 of 1947 Act. Reliance is placed on Nedungadi bank Ltd. v. K. P. Madhavankutty AIR 2000 sc 839 : 2000 (2) SCC 455 : 2000-I-LLJ- 561. ( 4 ) IN Nedungadi Banks case (supra) the workman had availed the remedy of appeal under the rules governing his condition of service and it could not be said that in the circumstances an industrial dispute did arise or was even apprehended after a lapse of about seven years of the dismissal of the workman. In view of this their Lordships of the Supreme court indicated thus:"para 6. The Central Government lacked power to make reference both on the ground of delay in invoking the power under section 10 of the Act as there being no industrial dispute existing or even apprehended. In view of this their Lordships of the Supreme court indicated thus:"para 6. The Central Government lacked power to make reference both on the ground of delay in invoking the power under section 10 of the Act as there being no industrial dispute existing or even apprehended. " ( 5 ) IN National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2000 SC 469 : 2000 (1) SCC 371 : 2000-I-LLJ-247 the Honble court observed thus:"it will be thus seen that High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition where there is an allegation that there is no industrial dispute and none apprehended which could be the subject-matter of reference for adjudication to the Industrial tribunal under Section 10 of the Act. " ( 6 ) THE ratio indicated as above is not applicable in the facts of the instant case. The employer not only retrenched the services of the petitioner but other workmen were also removed and Rajasthan Drainage and Nahar mandal Karmachari Sangh, Kota had filed the writ petition before the High Court assailing the retrenchment order dated 30/05/1983. The writ petition was dismissed on 15/09/1983. In the Special Appeal preferred against the order of single Bench, the Division Bench observed that in case the Industrial Dispute is raised and referred for adjudication the observations made by the Singe Judge shall not operate to the prejudice of workman. Learned labour Court after considering the aspect of delay allowed only 40% of the back wages to the workman in view of Cox and Kings (Agents)ltd. AIR 1977 SC 1666 : 1977 (2) SCC 705 : 1977-I-LLJ-471. ( 7 ) LEARNED Labour Court properly considered the evidence of the parties and held that the retrenchment of the workman was against the provisions of the Sections 25-F and 25-G of 1947 Act. I do not find any perversity in the impugned finding of fact. ( 8 ) THE writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed without any order as to costs.