Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 283 (RAJ)

Urban Improvement Trust v. Labour Court, Bikaner

2003-02-21

PRAKASH TATIA

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 16.1.2002 passed by the labour Court, Bikaner in Labour Case No. 60/98. The appropriate Government referred the dispute by order dated 25th August, 1998 to the labour Court to determine whether the termination of services of the non-petitioner Mohan Kumar from 30th Nov., 1992 is legal and valid, if not what relief can be granted to the workman. The labour court after giving full opportunity to the parties held that the services of the non-petitioner was terminated without following the procedure as prescribed in law and passed the order of reinstatement. After taking into consideration the facts of the case that non-petitioner has not worked from 30th Nov., 1992, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of the back wages. Only compensation of Rs. 2,500/- against back wages has been awarded by the labour court to the non-petitioner. 3. The facts of the case reveal that the non-petitioner was appointed on daily wages basis on 1st Sept., 1984 and he continued to serve till 30th Nov., 1992. The termination of the non-petitioner's services were alleged to have been challenged by filing writ petition before this Court in the year 1992 itself, but during the pendency of the writ petition, the non-petitioner raised industrial dispute in the year 1993 and the non-petitioner's writ petition, which was filed through Union for the benefit of other workmen also was dismissed for non-prosecution on 26th April, 1994. It is said that no action was taken by the Government, therefore, the non-petitioner again raised the dispute in the year 1997, upon which the appropriate Government referred the dispute to the labour court in the year 1999. 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, once the non-petitioner availed the remedy of approaching before this court by way of filing the writ petition and which was dismissed, thereafter, the non-petitioner was not entitled to raise the dispute as when the non-petitioner had chosen one of the remedy then he is debarred from availing the second remedy. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Jai Singh v. Union of India reported in AIR 1977 SC 898 . 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Jai Singh v. Union of India reported in AIR 1977 SC 898 . 5. A bare perusal of the facts mentioned in the judgment delivered in the case of Jai Singh (supra) it is clear that the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed by the Rajasthan High Court on the ground of involvement of disputed questions of facts. After the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner of that case filed the civil suit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Supreme Court in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court and the writ petition was rightly dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate remedy. At that time, it was pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner of that case that the suit of the petitioner was dismissed by the civil court in default for which the petitioner has moved an application for restoring the suit. The learned counsel for the respondents- State submitted that they will not oppose the application for restoration of the suit. The facts show that it has no application to the facts of this case. It is clear that the non-petitioner, who alleged to have filed the writ petition through Union raised the industrial dispute in the year 1993 during the pendency of the writ petition itself, which was not considered by the Government, therefore, he again raised the dispute in the year 1997. It is admitted case that claim of the non-petitioner had not been adjudicated on merit by any competent authority and it is not in dispute that there is no limitation prescribed for raising the dispute. The facts reveal that the non-petitioner was very much vigilant and raised the dispute, may it be, by filing the writ petition in the year 1992 itself that his services were terminated and even during the pendency of the writ petition he raised the dispute in accordance with law. Therefore, if the State Government referred the dispute to the labour court and the labour court adjudicated the dispute, no wrong has been committed by the labour court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the non-petitioner raised dispute after an inordinate delay, therefore, the order of reinstatement should not have been passed. Therefore, if the State Government referred the dispute to the labour court and the labour court adjudicated the dispute, no wrong has been committed by the labour court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the non-petitioner raised dispute after an inordinate delay, therefore, the order of reinstatement should not have been passed. It is true that in certain cases on the basis of the facts, the labour Court can mould the relief by awarding compensation in lieu of order of reinstatement, but here in this case, it appears that non- petitioner was not at fault and not caused any delay in proceedings. Therefore, if the labour court has exercised the discretion in favour of the non-petitioner-workman by passing the order of reinstatement, I do not find any reason to interfere in the award looking to the facts of this case while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.Therefore, there is no force in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******