Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1241 (RAJ)

Lalji v. State of Rajasthan

2003-09-03

H.R.PANWAR

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking relief 1 to modify the impugned Award Annx. 7 dated 16.3.2002 passed by the Labour Court, Udaipur by granting the relief of reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits. 2. The facts and circumstances, so far relevant to decide this writ petition are that petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar under the respondent No. 2 on 1.12.84 but the respondent No. 2 terminated his services on 25.8.89, whereas, the per the Government Order dated 17.11.88, the services of only those persons were to be terminated who were on or after 1.4.85. Petitioner has further come with the case that there is a clear violation of the 10 provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "I.D. Act") as persons junior to him were allowed to remain in employment. On reference having been made, the petitioner submitted a claim petition before the Labour Court, Udaipur and the learned Judge of the Labour Court, vide impugned Award dated 4.1.2002, directed the respondent No. 2 to reinstate the petitioner in service within one month from the date of award if any person junior to him has been allowed to remain in service. Hence this writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The learned Labour Court itself has come to the conclusion that persons junior to the petitioner have been allowed to continue in service and as such the retrenchment of the petitioner was in violation of the provisions of Section 25-G of the I.D. Act. In this view of the matter, there should be a specific direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and there was no need to use the words "if persons junior to the petitioner are in service then he should be reinstated in service" in the award. So far as back wages are concerned, on appreciation of evidence produced by the parties, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner-workman when his service remained terminated, he was not engaged for gainful employment and as such, the Labour Court declined to award back wages. This being pure finding of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence, calls for no interference. 5. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. This being pure finding of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence, calls for no interference. 5. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned Award is modified to the extent that the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this Order by the petitioner before the respondent Authority. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled for the back wages. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed by Modifying Award as Above. *******