Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 53 (RAJ)

STATE v. BHOPAL SINGH

2003-01-14

PRAKASH TATIA

body2003
Judgment PRAKASH TATIA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This petition is against the award dated 13/08/1993 passed by the Labour Court, udaipur in Labour Case No. 60/90 by which the learned Labour Court answered the reference made in favour of the non-petitioner no. 1-workman holding that the removal of non-petitioner No. 1 from service in pursuance of the order M-l is not legal and valid. The labour Court passed the order of reinstatement with 50% of the back wages from the date of removal of the non-petitioner till the date of reinstatement with costs of Rs. 300/ -. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that the non-petitioner was given appointment by Order no. 3537 dated 22/11/1985 on the post of Driver. He was given appointment on daily wages of Rs. 13. 25 per day. According to the non-petitioner, he worked from November 22, 198 5/01/1989 but on 7/01/1989 when non- petitioner reported for duty, the executive Engineer informed him that by oral order his services have been terminated. According to non-petitioner, he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, therefore, his services could not have been terminated without following the procedure of law prescribed under Section 25-F of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the act of 1947 ). Therefore, the action of the petitioner-non-applicant was absolutely illegal. ( 3 ) THE petitioner-non-applicant submitted before the Labour Court that non-petitioner was removed from service by written order, and a decision was taken that the workmen who were given appointment after 1/04/1985 be relieved from the services w. e. f. 1/12/1988. This order was sent to the non-petitioner. But he refused to accept the order. ( 4 ) THE applicant-non-petitioner as well as non-applicant- petitioner produced their evidence before the Labour Court. After, hearing both the parties, learned Judge, Labour court held that the petitioner completed more than 240 days in preceding calendar year and found that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 have not been complied with. ( 4 ) THE applicant-non-petitioner as well as non-applicant- petitioner produced their evidence before the Labour Court. After, hearing both the parties, learned Judge, Labour court held that the petitioner completed more than 240 days in preceding calendar year and found that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 have not been complied with. Learned judge, Labour Court also held that the order was admittedly issued on 2/01/1989, that order was alleged to be sent to the non-petitioner bears signature of the Process survivor-Chunnilal on the date 3/01/1989, therefore, the order of removal of non-petitioner from the service w. e. f. 31/12/1988 cannot be said to be a valid order of retrenchment after due compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. ( 5 ) I perused the entire record or the case including the order dated 2/01/1989, copy of which is placed on record as Annexure-9 by which the non-petitioner No. 1 was relieved from the services. This order which was issued on 2/01/1989 says that the services of the non-petitioner have come to an end w. e. f 31/12/1988, therefore, this is a removal of non-petitioner from back date from December 31, 1988 by passing the order on 2/01/1989. It is also proved from the endorsement on the back of Annexure 9 (Ex. M-1) that even this order was offered to the non-petitioner on 3/01/1989 but there is no mention in this order of offering any compensation in lieu of notice and other compensation required to be given to the employee as required, under Section 25-F of the act of 1947. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, I do not find any illegality 9 in the award passed by the Labour Court and the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. ( 7 ) NO order as to costs.