Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1826 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Singh

2005-07-19

R.P.VYAS

body2005
Judgment R.P. Vyas, J.-The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the Judgment and award dated 28.08.2002 (Annexure-5) passed by the learned Labour Court, Sriganganagar and notification dated 211.2001 may be quashed and set aside. 2. The brief facts of the case are that an industrial dispute was raised by the non-petitioner Bhanwar Singh before the Conciliation Officer regarding his retrenchment. The conciliation proceedings failed and a failure report was submitted by the conciliation officer before the appropriate Governement. The appropriate Government vide notification dated 211.2001 referred the matter to the Labour Court, Sriganganagar for adjudication under the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947). 3. The learned Labour Court, Sriganganagar issued notices to the parties and the respondent claimant filed claim petition stating inter alia that initially he was appointed on 01.03.1998 on the post of part-time Chowkidar in the establishment of employers. He continued to work till 31.09.1999. On 31.09.1999, his services were terminated by written order of the Superintendent, Government Social Welfare Department, Lalgarh Jatan, Sriganganagar. It was stated that before terminating his services, one months prior notice or one months salary in lieu thereof was not given to him. 4. It was further stated that his services have been terminated by violating the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it was prayed that his termination may be declared ineffective and void and workman be reinstated back in service with full back wages. The petitioners received the copy of the statement of claim, a detailed written statement was filed denying the contentions mentioned in the claim application and it was stated that workman was not appointed on regular post. Actually, he was appointed on the post of part-time Chowkidar, which cannot be said to be a regular or permanent post. Further it was also stated that as per the record of department, the claimant was employee of Mess Committee of Social Welfare Department. The claimant was appointed by Mess Committee for which, he was also paid by the Mess Committee, therefore, the claimant is workman of Mess Committee only. In fact, the workman never worked continuously without any break till 31.01.1999 in the office of present petitioners. He has falsely claimed that he had continuously worked till 31.01.1999. The claimant was appointed by Mess Committee for which, he was also paid by the Mess Committee, therefore, the claimant is workman of Mess Committee only. In fact, the workman never worked continuously without any break till 31.01.1999 in the office of present petitioners. He has falsely claimed that he had continuously worked till 31.01.1999. The respondents-workman never completed 240 days in a calendar year and he was not employee of present petitioners, therefore, provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, shall not be applicable in the present case. 5. After hearing the arguments, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent workman and directed the reinstatement of respondent-workman with 30% back-wages. 6. In this writ petition the main submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since the respondent was part time employee, therefore, he does not fall within the definition of workman as defined under the Act of 1947. Hence, the impugned Judgment and award deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent-workman has stated that since the impugned Judgment and award does not suffer from any basic infirmity or illegality and there is no error apparent on the face of the record, the same does not require any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 9. In my considered opinion, the findings arrived at by the learned Labour Court are based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. It is now settled proposition of law that part-time workers are also workman as defined under the provisions of Act of 1947. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Yashwant Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in LLJ 1991 50. Therefore, the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no force the same is hereby rejected. That apart, from the evidence of Arjun Lal Chaudhary who was examined on behalf of the petitioner has clearly stated that the respondent-workman has completed 240 days in a calendar year and before terminating his services provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H have not been complied with. 10. That apart, from the evidence of Arjun Lal Chaudhary who was examined on behalf of the petitioner has clearly stated that the respondent-workman has completed 240 days in a calendar year and before terminating his services provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H have not been complied with. 10. The findings of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court are based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and same do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 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 Courts 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 28.08.2002 (Annexure-5) passed by the learned Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar 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. For the reason mentioned above, the present writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.