Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1189 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Bodu Ram

2005-04-21

AJAY RASTOGI

body2005
Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-By this instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 20.01.1986 (Annexure-3) passed by the Labour Court, Jaipur in LCR No.118/83 whereby the workman has been reinstated in service with 50% back-wages and so also the order dated 19.05.1990 passed by the Labour Court, Jaipur in LC No. 62/89 under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”). 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, the workman Shri Bodu Ram died and his legal heirs filed application, which was allowed by this Court on 21.09.2004 whereby they have been taken on record. 3. The State Government made a reference under Section 10(1) of the Act of 1947 to the Labour Court vide its Notification dated 15.09.1983 in the following terms:- Whether the service of Bodu Ram (represented by PWD Kamgar Sangh) w.e.f. 010.1977 has rightly been terminated by the Assistant Engineer, PWD (B&R), Sub-Division 5, Jaipur and if not for what relief the workman is entitled for” 4. The respondent-workman filed his statement of claim before the Labour Court and submitted that he was initially engaged as Mason in December, 1976 and his services were terminated verbally w.e.f. 010.1977. At that point of time, those who were junior to him, were retained in service. He further contended that he has completed more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months and while terminating his services, compliance of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 has not been made. As a consequence thereof , the action of the petitioner-employer is void ab initio bad and he is entitled for reinstatement in service. 5. The petitioner filed the written statement before the Labour Court and submitted that the workman had worked on muster roll basis and he had worked in different sub divisions. During the period referred to by him as such he has not completed 240 days of service under one division and in such circumstances the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 are not applicable. It has also been submitted that he raised the dispute before the conciliation officer at a belated stage by filing application on 02.03.1982 and prior to it, he also submitted application in the year 1979 which came to their notice. It has also been submitted that he raised the dispute before the conciliation officer at a belated stage by filing application on 02.03.1982 and prior to it, he also submitted application in the year 1979 which came to their notice. Even then before the conciliation officer he was offered appointment which he refused, as such he is not entitled for reinstatement. 6. The Labour Court after examining the material recorded a finding that the workman has completed 240 days of continuous service and the petitioner-State has failed to comply Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, while terminating his services. So far as raising the dispute at a belated stage is concerned, the learned Labour Court recorded a finding that since there is no limitation provided under the Act of 1947, the protection provided to the workman cannot be defeated merely on this ground and after holding the action to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 directed reinstatement of the workman in service with 50% back wages. Hence, this petition. 7. After passing the award dated 20.01.1986, the workman filed application under Section 33(C) (2) for computation of wages, which became due to him in terms of the award and the learned Labour Court computed the amount payable to him of Rs. 20,762/-vide order dated 19.05.1990, which is also under challenge in this petition. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.K. Sharma, Dy. G.A. submits that the learned Labour Court has committed serious error in recording a finding of working for 240 days when undisputedly his working was in different muster rolls under different zone which could not have been clubbed together for the purpose of computing 240 days of service. It has also been submitted that the alleged termination of the workman was in 1977 and the conciliation proceedings were raised by him in 1982 almost after five years of termination and there is no explanation furnished by the workman in this regard and despite offer made to him during the conciliation proceedings, where he refused to join. In such circumstances, even if there was violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, he was not entitled for reinstatement in service and apart from it, 50% of wages which has been awarded to him in such circumstances he was not entitled for. 9. In such circumstances, even if there was violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, he was not entitled for reinstatement in service and apart from it, 50% of wages which has been awarded to him in such circumstances he was not entitled for. 9. Per contra, Shri Baig, learned Counsel for the respondent-workman has supported the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court and has submitted that no error has been committed in recording a finding with regard to working for 240 days and undisputedly there is a non-compliance, of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, which is mandatory in character and as a consequence thereof , the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service and so far as the dispute which was raised before the concillation officer at a belated stage, he has been deprived of 50% of wages to which the workman was otherwise entitled for and has further submitted that when the petitioner failed to comply award dated 20.01.1986, no error has been committed by the Labour Court in computing the payment on his application under Section 33(C)(2) vide order dated 19.05.1999. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. The services of the respondent-workman were terminated on 010.1977 and earlier one application was filed in 1979, but undisputedly the conciliation proceedings were initiated on 22.03.1982. The object behind initiation of conciliation proceedings requited under Section 12 of the Act of 1947 is that before the dispute is to be adjudicated, it is always desirable to amicably settle the dispute by way of conciliation between the parties and if the conciliation fails or no settlement could be arrived at on a failure report furnished by the conciliation officer under Section 12(4) of the Act of 1947, the appropriate Government thereafter ,may examine the dispute if at all required to be referred under Section 10 of the Act of 1947. So far as working for 240 days as provided under Section 25-B is concerned, no error has been committed by the Labour Court in recording such finding of fact and once the workman remained in service undisputedly for the period from December, 1976 to 010.1977, he has completed 240 days of services as per the requirement under the Act and which cast obligation upon the petitioner-employer to comply with Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. 11. As held in Ratan Singh vs. Union of India, 1997 (11) SCC 396 , Section 25-F is applicable to termination of a daily rated workman who had continuously served for the requisite statutory minimum period in a year. Hence, termination of service of daily rated workman without complying with Section 25-F is illegal. 12. It is true that there is no limitation provided under the Act of 1947 for initiating the grievance before the conciliation officer, or before the Labour Court or Tribunal, but still there should be some reasonable justification to be offered by the workman on account of which he could not raise his grievance before the appropriate authority. But in the present case application once was filed in 1979, but conciliation proceedings were initiated in 1982, for which reasonable explanation is forthcoming from the workman, however, by now 27 years have elapsed and the workman has also expired during the pendency of proceedings before this Court and statutory requirement of Section 25-F was also not complied with, but there cannot be a any reinstatement in present circumstances and it will meet the ends of justice if some consolidated amount is paid to the legal heirs of respondent-workman. 13. This Court initially stayed the operation of the award dated 20.01.1986, and so also the order dated 19.05.1990, but the same was modified on 26.02.1991 and the operation of the award remains stayed subject to payment of Rs. 11,000/-to be made to the workman. The petitioner- employer has filed application and has informed that payment as per directions has been made and received by the workman on 22.03.1991. 14. So far as the order passed by the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) is concerned, it is merely a computation based on the award passed on 20.01.1986, but since the award itself has been modified, the order dated 19.05.1990 Ann.5, in such circumstances, is not hold good and deserves to be set aside. 14. So far as the order passed by the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) is concerned, it is merely a computation based on the award passed on 20.01.1986, but since the award itself has been modified, the order dated 19.05.1990 Ann.5, in such circumstances, is not hold good and deserves to be set aside. 15. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed and the order dated 19.05.1990 (Ann.5) is quashed and set aside and the Award dated 20.01.1986 of reinstatement with 50% back wages is modified and the legal heirs of respondent-workman will be entitled for a consolidated sum of Rs. 35,000/-in lieu of reinstatement with back-wages and after adjusting Rs. 11,000/-already paid, the balance of Rs. 24,000/-be paid to his legal heirs within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is made available, failing which they will be entitled for interest @ 9% for delay in payment till its actual realisation. No order as to costs.