Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 183 (RAJ)

LR’S of Milkhi Ram v. Labour Court

2003-02-05

B.S.CHAUHAN

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed for setting aside the impugned award dated 27.6.2001 made by the labour Court, by which the claim petition of the workman has been rejected. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Appropriate Government, vide order dated 2.9.99, made a reference as to whether the termination of the workman we.f. 1.12.88 by the Irrigation Department was in accordance with law and If not, to what relief he was entitled for. On the date the reference was made, the workman was not alive as he had died on 13.5.98. The legal heirs of the workman fled the claim petition contending that the deceased workman had been appointed as a Beldar on 1.1.85 and continued to work upto 30.11.88; his services had been terminated without complying with the requirements of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act, 1947"). The deceased workman filed a writ petition challenging the termination before the High Court which was disposed of on 22.8.89 and he was asked to resort to the provisions of the Act, 1947. He approached the Labour Welfare Commissioner cum Conciliation Officer but the appeal was rejected vide order dated 6.1.94 on the ground of delay. He approached the Appropriate Government and the reference dated 2.9.99 was made. It was contended that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year counting backward from the date of termination and the termination was in violation of the statutory provisions, therefore, the termination order was liable to be quashed. It was further been contended in the claim petition that the workman died on 13.5.98 and his wife had also died in 1997 and his legal heirs were entitled for employment on compassionate ground along with arrears of salary etc. 3. The irrigation Department filed reply contending that the Project in which the workman was working, was over and vide order dated 17.11.88 Issued by the State Government, all the casual labourers employed therein had to be terminated, therefore, it was not a case where the provisions of Section 25-F were attracted. Even then they had been given on month's notice and also compensation to the deceased workman along with others. A cheque of Rs. 1274/- was issued on 30.11.88, which was accepted by the deceased workman and, thus, there was no industrial dispute existing between the parties. Even then they had been given on month's notice and also compensation to the deceased workman along with others. A cheque of Rs. 1274/- was issued on 30.11.88, which was accepted by the deceased workman and, thus, there was no industrial dispute existing between the parties. 4. The Labour Court permitted the parties to lead evidence and after considering the same, the Labour Court recorded the finding of fact that the deceased workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year counting backward from the date of termination; however, his termination was in consonance with law as he had been given compensation to the tune of Rs. 1274/- by cheque No. F. 539201 dated 30.11.88, which had been accepted by the workman and no industrial dispute remained in existence. A further finding has been recorded that in view of the Government order dated 17.11.88, all such employees had been terminated and the said Government Order was also produced and proved before the Labour Court and in view thereof, there was no question of violation of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act, 1947. More so, there has been inordinate delay on the part of the petitioners to raise the industrial dispute and consequently the Labour Court dismissed the claim petition. 5. In a limited jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, no case is made out for interference as the learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out anything as how the said award can be held to be perverse, being based on no evidence or contrary to the evidence on record, nor there is any material to show that all similarly situated persons had not been removed because of the Government Order dated 17.11.88 on completion of a particular Project. 6. Before parting with the case, it may be pertinent to mention here that the claim had been made also for compassionate employment for one of the dependents of the deceased workman though it was not in terms of the reference and has rightly been not considered by the Labour Court. 6. Before parting with the case, it may be pertinent to mention here that the claim had been made also for compassionate employment for one of the dependents of the deceased workman though it was not in terms of the reference and has rightly been not considered by the Labour Court. If the workman had died prior to the date of reference, I am doubtful regarding the maintainability of the reference itself for the reason that there is no scarcity of judicial pronouncements that belated reference cannot be entertained by the Labour court for the reason that the industrial dispute did not exist on that date. The very purpose of industrial legislation is to maintain industrial peace and entertained the petition at such a belated stage would not serve that purpose for the/reason that by that time the dispute itself does not remain in existence. 7. I find no merit in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed.Writ Petition dismissed. *******