Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 847 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Ram Khiladi

2005-03-18

AJAY RASTOGI

body2005
Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Award dated 7.1.1992 (Annexure 3) passed by Labour Court, Bharatpur in LCR No. 157/1990 has been assailed by State of Rajasthan (petitioner) in this writ petition. Ram Khiladi (respondent -workman) was engaged/appointed on daily wages in January, 1986 in the Office of Assistant Engineer PWD Sub Dn. Karauli, and by verbal order, his services were dispensed with on 110.1986. The workman raised an industrial dispute, which was referred by appropriate Government vide its Notification dated 33.1990 for adjudication by Labour Court, Bharatpur. On 08.06.1990, the Labour Court initially issued notices, which were duly served in the Office of Assistant Engineer PWD Sub Division, Karauli. Since no one appeared despite service of notices, on 9.1990 the Labour Court ordered to proceed ex parte against the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application for recalling the order of ex parte proceedings, which was allowed by Labour Court on 2.1991 at cost of Rs. 120/-and the case was fixed on 14.1991, and when no one appeared on 14.1991. Labour Court ordered that the order dated 9.1990 passed earlier for proceeding ex parte against petitioner, shall continue. After almost seven months, again an application was filed by the petitioner on 210.1991, for recalling order dated 14.1991, and since there was no justification and material placed on record, the Labour Court dismissed their application vide order dated 210.1991 (Annexure 2) and after taking into consideration the material on record, Labour Court passed Award dated 7.1.1992 (Annexure 3) recording the finding that respondent workman had worked for more than 240 days, and the petitioner has failed to comply with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act"), and accordingly directed the petitioner to reinstate respondent workman in service with full back wages. Hence, this writ petition. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Award on the ground that respondent workman had not worked 240 days and since reasonable opportunity has not been afforded by the Labour Court, the petitioner could not place material on record before the authority for consideration. Shri B.K. Sharma has submitted that there was bonafide mistake, on account of which the Officer could not appear before the Labour Court, which had occasion to initiate proceedings ex parte. Shri B.K. Sharma has submitted that there was bonafide mistake, on account of which the Officer could not appear before the Labour Court, which had occasion to initiate proceedings ex parte. However, the fact remains that the petitioner failed to produce any material, but the fact that the workman has worked for more than 240 days during the period in question which has been specifically stated by him in his statement of claim so also in the affidavit submitted before the Labour Court remained uncontroverted. 3. The workman has opposed the writ petition and has submitted that he had worked for more than 240 days and undisputably there is a non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act and despite opportunity afforded, the petitioner failed to produce material in support of its case. It has been submitted by the workman that no illegality has been committed by Labour Court in initiating proceedings ex parte and in passing the Award dated 7.1.1992 (Annexure 3). 4. The petitioner has filed additional affidavit and in para 3 it has been submitted that respondent workman has been taken back on duty on 29.6.1992 and since then he has been continuously working and his pay bill has been placed on record as Annexure R/1. 5. On the basis of material on record, this fact remained undisputed that respondent workman has worked from January, 1986 to October, 1986, which makes his working of more than 240 days and the petitioner has failed to make compliance of Section 25-F of the Act and as a consequence, the workman was entitled for reinstatement. In my opinion, there is no illegality in the finding recorded by Labour Court for initiating ex parte proceedings and so also in recording the finding with regard to his working for more than 240 days, and even before this Court, the petitioner has failed to produce any prima facie material even before this Court to show that the workman did not work for more than 240 days-in the absence of which what has been stated by respondent workman has to be accepted and as he has been taken back on duty from 29.6.1992 and has been satisfactorily discharging his duties, I find no justification to interfere in the impugned Award dated 7.1.1992. (Annexure 3). Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.