Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1770 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Manoharlal Saini

2005-07-13

AJAY RASTOGI

body2005
Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against the award passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur dated 21st April, 1994 (Annexure-1). 2. The respondent-workman was initially engaged as daily wager w.e.f. 10th January, 1986 and after serving almost two years, his services were dispensed with verbally w.e.f. 16th December, 1987. He initially raised his grievance before the conciliation officer and after the failure report was furnished, a reference was made by the appropriate Government vide its notification dated 28th September, 1989 to Labour, Bharatpur for adjudication of the dispute. 3. The case of the respondent-workman before the Labour Court was that despite the fact that he worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months without due compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act of 1947”), his services were dispensed with verbally w.e.f. 112.1987 by the State Government and as a consequence of non-compliance, he is entitled for reinstatement in service with full back-wages. He also filed his affidavit in support of his claim and submitted that he had worked from 1st January, 1986 to 16th December, 1987 and worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months as required under Section 25-B of the Act, for complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, the petitioners filed their written statement before the appropriate authority and it was stated that the respondent-workman had worked for 143 days in the year 1986 and for 181 days in the year 1987 and produced the muster rolls and in support of their contention and it was contended that since the workman had failed to work for more than 240 days of service in the preceding 12 months, there was no occasion available of the petitioners to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. 4. 4. Learned Labour Court after taking note of material on record and so also muster rolls which were duly exhibited recorded a finding of fact that the contents of affidavit were not duly supported by the muster rolls, which were placed on record by the petitioners and on the basis of oral evidence, the learned Labour Court recorded a finding that the respondent-workman had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months and compliance of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 has not been made and as a consequence thereof , directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent-workman in service with full back-wages. Hence, this writ petition. 5. Mr. B.K. Sharma, Counsel for petitioners has urged that learned Labour Court failed to consider the material placed on record and all the relevant muster rolls of the year 1987 during which the respondent-workman had worked were made available and merely because muster rolls of three months particularly for the month of October, November and December, 1987 were not placed on record. The adverse inference, which has been drawn in recording finding that the workman had worked during the aforesaid months was not supported by any material on record and such finding is duly perverse and in such circumstances, the award passed by the Labour Court for granting the relief of reinstatement deserves to be set aside. 6. Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Counsel for respondent has urged that the learned Labour Court has taken note of complete material on record and so also the actual working of the workman for the period i.e., October, November and December, 1987 and thereafter, recorded a finding of working of the respondents-workman for more than 240 days and consequently, held that the petitioners failed to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 and this Court under its limited jurisdiction available under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not like to interfere in the finding of fact which is duly supported by the material on record and the petitioners have failed to satisfy the perversity of the finding of fact recorded and therefore, submitted that there is no illegality in the award passed by the Labour Court in granting relief of reinstatement in service to the workman by award dated 21st April, 1994. 7. 7. It has also been informed to this Court that during the pendency of writ petition, the respondent-workman was reinstated in service on daily wages basis in pursuant to order dated 21st November, 1997 and presently he is working in the office of Assistant Engineer, PWD, Sub-Division, Rajgadh, Distt. Alwar and is satisfactorily discharged his duties. 8. I have considered the rival submissions advanced and also perused the material available on record. 9. The respondent-workman being daily wager was not supplied with letter of appointment or the salary slip at the end of the month. As such according to material, which was available in his possession he has stated about his working in the office of the petitioners and so also led by him in his affidavit before the Labour Court of his working for the period in the year 1987 of more than 240 days in the calendar year. It has come on record that the written statement has been filed by the petitioners and supporting muster rolls, which were placed on record, contradictory statement came forward and statement of Om Prakash was recorded, which was not supported by muster rolls which were available on record. Thus, the learned Labour Court after taking note of material on record has recorded a finding of working of the respondent-workman for more than 240 days in one calendar year i.e., 1987 and the petitioners were under an obligation to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 25-F which clearly postulates that the workman should be offered/tendered one months notice or salary in lieu thereof and compensation of 15 days of each completed year of service. Undisputably, the compliance of pre-condition to Section 25-F was not made before services of the workman were dispensed with w.e.f. 16th December, 1987. 10. I do not find any perversity in the finding recorded by the Labour Court so far as working of the respondent-workman for more than 240 days in preceding 12 months. There is no material placed on record before Labour Court by the workman to show that he was not gainfully employed during the period in question and accordingly, I do not consider it proper to grant him the benefit of back-wages at least till he was reinstated in service in pursuant to order dated 21st November, 1997. 11. There is no material placed on record before Labour Court by the workman to show that he was not gainfully employed during the period in question and accordingly, I do not consider it proper to grant him the benefit of back-wages at least till he was reinstated in service in pursuant to order dated 21st November, 1997. 11. In the result, writ petition is partly allowed and award dated 21.04.1994 (Annexure-1) in so far as it relates to the grant of back-wages, is hereby set aside and it is made clear that respondent workman will not be entitled to any back-wages till he rejoins upon reinstatement in service pursuant to the award. No order as to costs.