Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2413 (RAJ)

The Director v. Sunil Kumar

2005-09-09

PREM SHANKAR ASOPA

body2005
Judgment P.S. Asopa, J.-The petitioner State has filed this writ petition against the award of the labour Court dated 02.01.1996 whereby the reference was answered in favour of the workman with a direction to reinstate him with 50% back-wages, continuity of service and other benefits. 2. That the reference was made by the Government of Rajasthan to the labour Court. On receipt of the reference, the notices were issued to both the parties and the respondent No. 1 Shri Sunil Kumar filed statement of claim stating therein that he has worked as LDC against the permanent post from 22.05.1986 to 29.02.1988 and by an oral order dated 29.03.1988 his services have been terminated without assigning any reason. 3. It was submitted by him in the claim that during the aforesaid period of 22.05.1986 to 29.02.1988 he completed 240 days in the last preceding twelve calendar months, therefore, he was entitled for the protection of Section 25-F but neither one month notice nor one month pay in lieu of one month notice nor retrenchment compensation was paid to him. It was also submitted by him that before termination no seniority list was prepared and after his termination, Department gave appointment to Sultan Singh, Balbeer Singh, Raghuveer Singh, Rambabu Saxena and R.N. Sharma as LDC but no opportunity of fresh employment was accorded to him, therefore, this action of the respondent is violative of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. The respondent department filed a written statement and has taken the objection that he was employed only up to 29.02.1988 and his termination was on account of efflux of time, therefore, is not covered under the definition of retrenchment have been under Section 2 (oo) (bb) of Industrial Disputes Act. Further the workman has not worked continuously from 22.05.1986 to 29.02.1988, so as to complete 240 days, therefore, Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable. 5. The workman examined himself and produced one document which was marked as W-1. In rebuttal department examined Ratan Lal the Deputy Director and produced 28 documents which were marked as M-1 to M-28. 6. The learned labour Court after going through the entire evidence on record give the finding that the workman has completed the 240 days in last preceding 12 months. In rebuttal department examined Ratan Lal the Deputy Director and produced 28 documents which were marked as M-1 to M-28. 6. The learned labour Court after going through the entire evidence on record give the finding that the workman has completed the 240 days in last preceding 12 months. The relevant Paras 9, 10 and 11 of the Award are reproduced hereunder: - ^^9- izkFkhZ ds 'kiFki= ds iSjk uEcj 1] 2 o 3 easdFku gSa] ^^izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ laLFkku ceqdke /kkSyiqj esa dfu"B fyfid ds LFkkbZ in ds foijhr 22-05-1986 ls dk;jr Jfed FkkA mldh lssZok,a fujUrj jgh muesa fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dksbZ O;o/kku ugha jgk ,oa vizkFkhZ izkFkhZ dh lsokvksa ls gesk'kk lUrq"V jgsA izkFkhZ dh lssok,a fnukad fy[kd vknsk }kjk lekIr dj nh x;h gSaA ls 29-02-1988 ls ekSok lekfIr dk dksbZ Hkh dkj.k ugha cryk;k x;k aA^^ foi{kh ds lk{; jruyky dk izfrijh{k.k esa dFku gS fd mldk /kkSyiqj esa dHkh iks gSfLVax ugha jgk vkSj u gh Jfed dks dke djrs ns[kkA ;g lgh gS fd Jfed nSfud osruHkksxh fyfid ds in ij dke djrk FkkA /kkSyiqj dk tks fjdkMZ ogka ls vf/kdkjh us Hkst fn;k mlh ds vk/kkj ij og c;ku ns jgk gSaA bl izdkj foi{kh ds lk{kh jruyky ds c;ku ls lkfcr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us mlds le{k dHkh dk;Z ugha fd;k vkSj tks fjdkMZ ogka ds vf/kdkjh us Hkstk mlh ds vk/kkj ij c;ku ns jgk gSaA bl lk{kh us ,lk dgha dFku ugha fd;k fd izkFkhZ lslcafa/kr vU; dksbZ fjdkMZ ugha gSaA nwljs bl dkj.k ds ckjs esa eq[; xokg ogka dk vf/kdkjh Fkk ftldss le dk;Z fd;k ;k og fyfid Fkk tks izkFkhZ ls lcafa/kr fjdkMZ dks esUVsu djrk Fkk ijUrq bu nksuksa esa ls fdlh dks isk ugha fd;k x;k blfy;s bu nksuksa esa ls fdlh dks isk u djus ls ;gh mi/kkj.k yh tk ldrh gS fd vxj og isk gkrss rks izkFkhZ ds izdj.k ds dFku dk fd mlus 22-06-1986 ls 29-02-1988 rd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k] dk leFkZu djrs vkSj foi{kh lk{kh ds dFku dk fd izkFkhZ us 198 fnu dke fd;k] dk leFkZu ugha djrkA bl izdj.k esa eq[; lk{; mifLFkfr jftLVj Fkk ftldks isk ugha fd;k x;k gS vr% foi{kh ds lk{kh jruyky dk dk;LFky ij dksbZ iksfLVasZx u gksuk] foi{kh lk{kh }kjk dk;Z djrs gq, ugha ns[kuk] foi{kh dk ,lk dFku u gksuk fd izkFkhZ dk vU; dksbZ fjdkMZ ugha gSa] foi{kh ds eq[; lk{kh ml le; ds vf /kdkjh ftlds le{k izkFkhZ us dk;Z ;k og fyfid tks izkFkhZ dk fjdkMZ esUVsu djrk Fkk] dk lk{; esa isk u gksuk] bu lc rF;kas ls foi{kh lk{kh dk ;g dFku fd] izkFkhZ us dsoy 198 fnu gh dke fd;k vkSj 240 fnu dke ugha fd;k dks ugha ekuk tk ldrk j u gh izkFkhZ }kjk isk fd;k x;k fjdkMZ lEiw.kZ fjdkMZ dgk tk ldrk D;kassvkSfd vizkFkhZ lk{kh dk ,lk dFku ugha gS fd mlus lEiw.kZ fjdkMZ isk fd;k x;k gSA lEiw.kZ fjdkMZ lkfcr u gksus fjdkMZ izkFkhZ ds kiFki= dk s[k.Mu ugha gksrkA izkFkhZ dk kiFki= ij izfrijh{k.k fd;k ijUrq ,lk dksbZ rF; ugha vk;k ftlls muds dFku dks ugha ekuk tk ldsA vr% izkFkhZ ds kiFki= ls lkfcr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us foi{kh ds ;gka 22-05-1986 ls 29-09-1988 rd yxkrkj dke fd;k vkSj fiNys 12 ekg esa 240 fnu lsvf /kd dk;Z djuk lkfcr gksrk gSaA ok lekfIr ds le; dksbZ uksfVl vkfn ugha fn;k x;k blfy;s lss 10- izkFkhZ dh lsok,a /kkjk 25&,Q vkS?kksfxd fookn vf /kfu;e ds mYya?kuk esa lekIr dh x;hgStksvo/Sk gS vkSj izkFkhZ iqu% lsok esa fy;stkus;ksX; gSaA 11- izkFkhZ ds kiFki= ds iSjk uEcj 9 esa dFku gS fd mldh lsok lekfIr ds ckn vizkFkhZx.k us lqYrkuflga] j?kqohjflga] jkeckcw lDlSuk] cychjflag] vkj-,u-'kekZ ds foHkkx dk dk;Z lEikfnr djok;k gS ftlds uke iznkZ MCY;q 1 esa dFku gSa fd ;g ckr lgh gS fd lqYrkuflaa gSA foi{kh lk{kh dk izfrijh{k.k esg] jkeckcw] cyohjflga] Zvkj-,u-'kekZ /kkSyiqj ds fjdkMZ ds vuqlkj dk;jr FksA vr% izkFkhZ ds 'kiFki= dks u ekuus dk dksbZ dkj.k ughaA nwljs foi{kh ds lk{kh us Hkh bl kiFki= ds iSjk ds ckjs esa viuk izfrijh{k.k esa Lohdkj fd;k gSaA rhljs iznkZ MCY;q 1 vknsk foi{kh dk gS tks Hkh izkFkhZ ds dFku dk leFkZu djrk gSA vr% izkFkhZ ds 'kiFki= foi{kh lk{kh ds izfrijh{k.k rFkk iznkZ MCY;w 1 vknsk ls ;g lkfcr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr ds ipkr~ lqYrkuflga] j?kqohjflga] jkeckcw] cyohjflag vkSj vkj-,u-kekZ dks dke ij yxk;k x;kA foi{kh lk{kh dk izfrijh{k.k esa dFku gS fd ;g ckr lgh gS fd lqYrkuflag] jkeckcw] cyohj] vkj-,u-kekZ /kkSyiqj ds fjdkMZ ds vuqlkj Zdk;jr FksA lquhy dks dk;kZy; ds cSdykx dk dk;Z fuiVkus ds fy;s ,d fufpr vof/k ds fy;s j[kk FkkA mlds ckn cSdykx dk dk;Z bdV~Bk ugha gqvk blfy;s Jfed dks iqu% ugha cqyk;kA foi{kh dk ;g dFku ekus tkus ;ksfd iznkZ MCY;w 1 ds vuqlkj lqYrku] cyohj] vkfn dks ckn es X; ugha gSa D;kas a yxk;k x;k gS tks Hkh nSfud osruHkkxh ds :i esa yxk;k x;k gSa blfy;s vxj dk;Z ugha gksrk rks mudks D;kas yxk;k tkrkA bl izdkj izkFkhZ foi{kh foHkkx esZa dk;jr Fkk ijUrq izkFkhZ dks dke ds fy;s ugha cqyk;k x;kA bl izdkj foi{kh }kjk qizkFkhZ dks gVkus ds ckn u;h fu;fDr;k¡ nh x;h ijUrq izkFkhZ dks dke ij vkus ckcr dksbZ uksfVl ugha fn;k x;kA qvr% foi{kh foHkkx }kjk izkFkhZ dks dke ls gVkus ds ckn u;h fu;fDr;k¡ j?kqohj] lqYrkuflag oxSjg dksdjus ij izkFkhZ dks dksbZ uksfVl dk;Z ij vkus ds fy;s ugha fn;k x;k blfy;s izkFkhZ dh lss ok,a /kkjk 25&,Q vkS?kksfxd j izkFkhZ iqu% ls fookn vf/kfu;e ,oa fu;ekas ds fu;e 78 dh mYya?kuk esa dh x;h gS] tks voS/k gS vkSok easfy;s tkus ;ksX; gSaAvizkFkhZ lquhy dqekj dh izkFkhZ }kjk lsj izkFkhZ iqu% lsok lekIr fd;k tkuk voS/k o vuqfpr gS vkSok easfy;s tkus dk vf /kdkjh gksus ls mls iqu% lsa fy;k tk,A mldh lsok esok,a sfujUrj ekuh tk, rFkk fujUrjrk ds lHkh ykHk ifjykHk nsrs gq, izkFkhZ fiNys osru ds :i esa fiNys osru dk 50 izfrkr osru izkIr djus dk vf /kdkjh gksxk 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner department challenged the award on the ground that the workman has failed to discharge the burden to prove that he has completed 240 days in the last preceding year from 29.02.1988. The further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the onus to prove that the workman has completed 240 days in last preceding one year lies on workman. In support of his contention he relied upon AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1147 Range Forest Officer vs. S.T. Hadimani & AIR 2003 Supreme Court 38 M/S. Essen Deinki vs. Rajiv Kumar. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that since termination of the year 1988, therefore, after the lapsed of 17 years the reinstatement is not the proper relief and lieu of reinstatement the compensation be awarded. 8. The Counsel for the respondent workman submitted that the learned labour Court has in a proper and legal manner appreciated the evidence on record and has nowhere shifted the burden on the employer. The finding of the labour Court is based on the evidence of the worker and further the department failed to produce person who was maintaining the attendance register and has seen the workman working as LDC. The worker has produced the best possible available evidence, therefore, the judgement of the labour Court is in accordance with the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court. The worker has also submitted that there is no evidence to the effect that the petitioners have not violated the Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. As read Section 2(oo) (bb) it was submitted that the work was of permanent nature and for execution of which the persons have been employed subsequently. 9. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award and other documents available on the record and carefully examined the rival submission of the parties. 10. On the issue of the completion of 240 days in a last preceding 12 months, the labour Court has examined the evidence of the worker as well as management and has rightly come to the conclusion that the managements witness Ratan Lal was not maintaining record and the person maintaining record was not produced. The petitioners have failed to establish that the worker has worked for 198 days whereas the worker has proved that he has worked 240 days in last proceeding 12 months. The petitioners have failed to establish that the worker has worked for 198 days whereas the worker has proved that he has worked 240 days in last proceeding 12 months. Learned labour Court has also gave a finding that the record produced by the respondent is incomplete one, was not complete. In such circumstances the labour Court has rightly relied affidavit of the worker. Apart from above, there is uncontroverted finding of employment of 5 persons as LDC after termination of respondent. Therefore, the labour Court has committed no error of fact and law on the aforesaid issue and rightly came to the conclusion that there is violation of Section 25-F and 25-H. 11. As regard the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner-State that after expiry of 17 years, reinstatement is not the proper remedy. On this aspect of the matter, it is significant to mention here, that the work still exists and the same is executed by the order persons subsequently recruited in the service and the worker-respondent is unemployed, therefore, the respondent-worker is also entitled to be reinstated. 12. In my view the labour Court has not committed any kind of error which is error apparent on the record so as to warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The impugned Judgment of the labour Court is perfectly legal and justified. 13. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.