Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1118 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Raju

2005-04-12

R.P.VYAS

body2005
Judgment R.P. Vyas, J.-The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer that the award dated 06.05.2000 (Annexure 10) passed by the learned Labour Court, Sriganganagar may kindly be quashed and set aside. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. However, the said conciliation proceedings failed and the Conciliation Officer submitted failure report to the appropriate Government. The appropriate Government vide notification dated. 27.07.1995 referred the matter for adjudication to the learned Labour Court, Sriganganagar under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. The learned Labour Court issued notices to the parties. The petitioners submitted statement of claim alleging inter alia that he was appointed as Casual Labour on 05.04.1990 and worked upto 1993. The Assistant Engineer, Ghaggar Flood Control Division, Suratgarh terminated their services by verbal order on 04.04.1993, without following the mandatory provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. The petitioners filed written statement stating that the respondent No. 1 Raju was initially appointed as Casual Labour on daily wage basis from the month of July, 1990 as and when required. He worked upto 31st March, 1993 for temporary period from time to time. His name was entered in the muster roll maintained in the office of Assistant Engineer, Ghaggar Flood Control Division, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar. It was also alleged in the written statement that the respondent No. 1 Raju has himself abandoned the services of the petitioner and his services have not been terminated by the petitioners. It was also alleged that respondent No. 1 has not completed 240 days of services in a calendar year. Thus, provisions of Act of 1947 are not applicable in this case. It was also alleged that the respondent No. 1 has moved an application on 31.03.1993 for resignation. In the said application he has stated that he has got some other suitable job. Therefore, there is no question of retrenchment of respondent No. 1 but, in fact, it is a case of abandonment of service. It was also alleged that he was paid entire wages from time to time and lastly for the month of March, 1993 to 03.04.1993 vide voucher dated 31.03.1993. 5. After recording evidence of both the parties, the learned Labour Court, Sriganganagar vide its Judgment and award dated. It was also alleged that he was paid entire wages from time to time and lastly for the month of March, 1993 to 03.04.1993 vide voucher dated 31.03.1993. 5. After recording evidence of both the parties, the learned Labour Court, Sriganganagar vide its Judgment and award dated. 06.05.2000 (Annexure-10), allowed the claim petition filed by the petitioner and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with 50% back wages. 6. In the instant petition, the main contention of the petitioners is that the respondent No. 1 himself left the services of the petitioners which is evident from the application dated 31.03.1993 submitted by the respondent No. 1, in which he categorically stated that he has got some other suitable job. Thus, it is a case of abandonment of service. That apart the respondent No.1 has not completed 240 days of service in a calendar year, therefore, provisions of the Act of 1947 have not applicable in this case. 7. On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Sriganganagar is perfectly justified and in accordance with law and same does not require any interference by this Court while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and scrutinised and scanned the material available on record. 9. The Labour Court has drawn adverse inference against the petitioners for not producing the muster roll for the Month of February, 1993 and for the period from April, 1993 to 12.08.1993. The learned Labour Court has further observed that the petitioners have not shown any reason for not producing the aforesaid muster rolls. The learned Labour Court recorded categoric finding that Malikiyat Singh, who was examined on behalf of the department has given contradictory statement, in as much as, in LCR No. 236/98 he has stated that daily wage employees worked till 03.04.1993 whereas in the present matter he has stated that daily wage employees stopped working from March, 1993. The learned Labour Court has further arrived at the finding that alleged resignation letter dated 31.03.1993 was got prepared by Jr. Engineer Shri Harbans lal Singla, keeping the respondent No. 1 in dark. He got the blank papers signed by the respondent No. 1. The learned Labour Court has further arrived at the finding that alleged resignation letter dated 31.03.1993 was got prepared by Jr. Engineer Shri Harbans lal Singla, keeping the respondent No. 1 in dark. He got the blank papers signed by the respondent No. 1. Thus, on the basis of material on record the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 has completed 240 days of service in a calendar year and his services have been terminated without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. 10. In my considered opinion, the findings of facts recorded by the Labour Court are based on correct appreciation of entire evidence and material available on record and it cannot be said that the findings of the Labour Court are erroneous or perverse or patently unreasonable or based on no material on record. The findings of facts recorded by the Labour Court do not suffer from any basic illegality or infirmity. 11. Apart from that, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot interfere with the exercise of the discretionary power vested in the inferior Court or Tribunal, unless its findings are clearly perverse or patently unreasonable. While exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not act as Court of appeal. 12. The High Court’s power of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution would be restricted to interference in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law, and would be exercised most sparingly, in cases where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. It cannot be used as appellate or revisional power nor will the High Court, in exercise of this power, substitute its own Judgment for that of the inferior Court, whether on a question of fact, or of law, or interfere with the intra vires exercise of a discretionary power, unless it is arbitrary or capricious, or unless there was no evidence at all on which the inferior Court could have come to conclusion it did or there was error of finding on a jurisdictional fact. 13. From perusing the Judgment and award dated. 13. From perusing the Judgment and award dated. 06.05.2000 (Annexure-10) passed by the learned Labour Court, Sriganganagar it does not reveal that there is patent illegality and irregularity or error of law apparent on the face of record and the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court are perverse. 14. Thus, the Judgment and award dated 06.05.2000 (Annexure-10) passed by the learned Labour Court, Sriganganagar cannot be said to be suffering from the basic infirmity and illegality and the same does not require any interference by this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 15. For the reasons mentioned above, the present writ petition is dismissed. No. order as to costs.