Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2923 (RAJ)

Banshi Lal v. Judge, Labour & Industrial Tribunal

2006-10-19

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2006
Judgment Mohammad Rafiq, J.-The petitioner Banshi Lal has in this writ petition challenged the award dated 27.04.2002 passed by learned Labour Court, Jodhpur. 2. A reference was made to the Labour Court by appropriate Government vide notification dated 10.03.1999 on the question whether the removal of the petitioner-workman from service by the respondents w.e.f. 25.08.1990 was legal and justified and if not, what relief the workman was entitled to. 3. According to the averments made in the statement of claim of the workman, he was appointed by verbal order of Assistant Engineer, PHED Division-IIIrd Lift Canal, Jodhpur on 01.04.1990 on daily wages basis @ of Rs. 14/-per day which was later on enhanced to Rs. 22/-per day. Suddenly the respondent by verbal order terminated his services on 24.08.1990 without making compliance of the provisions of Section 25-G & 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) and Rule 77 of the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules. The respondent did not serve the petitioner-workman with a notice prior to his removal. While all those who were engaged with him namely Jagat Singh, Mohan, Jaina Ram and Jagdish were still continued in job but the petitioner was removed from the service. It was, therefore, prayed that the termination of his services be declared illegal and improper and the respondent be directed to reinstate him with continuity in service and back wages. 4. The claim of the petitioner was contested by the respondent-management who denied that the petitioner was continuously working from 01.04.1990 to 24.08.1990. It was contended that the petitioner worked only for few days but in broken spells. So far the workmen Jugat Singh, Mohan, Jaina Ram and Jagdish were concerned they were continuously working much prior to petitioner’s engagement. In fact Jaina Ram was initially appointed in the year 1989 who also worked upto 30.09.1990 and thereafter absented from the duties. But he was reinstated in service pursuant to the award passed in his favour by learned Labour Court. The case of the petitioner is, however, is entirely different. It was, therefore, prayed that the claim of the petitioner be dismissed with costs. 5. Learned Labour Court after recording of evidence of the parties and hearing their arguments finally dismissed the claim of the petitioner-workman answering the reference made by the appropriate government in the affirmative and holding the workman not entitled to any relief . 6. It was, therefore, prayed that the claim of the petitioner be dismissed with costs. 5. Learned Labour Court after recording of evidence of the parties and hearing their arguments finally dismissed the claim of the petitioner-workman answering the reference made by the appropriate government in the affirmative and holding the workman not entitled to any relief . 6. I have heard Sh. K.V. Vyas, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. R. Dave, Dy. Learned Government Advocate for respondent who in their arguments have supported their respective cases as pleaded before learned Labour Court. 7. Sh. K.V. Vyas, learned Counsel for petitioner argued that findings recorded by the learned Labour Court that the petitioner abandoned the service on his own were based on mis-reading and wrong appreciation of the evidence in as much as those findings were erroneously recorded. Learned Labour Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner was retrenched on 25.08.1990 and within two days thereafter he filed writ petition on 27.08.1990. It would not, therefore, be accepted that the petitioner abandoned the job at his own. He argued that even if the petitioner did not complete 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of his retrenchment, violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act and Rule 77 of the Rules cited supra was proved and there was no evidence that the petitioner abandoned the service. 8. On the other hand Shri Rameshwar Dave, learned Deputy Government Advocate argued that the award passed by the learned Labour Court is based on sound reasoning. In doing so, learned Labour Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and recorded the findings which are the findings of fact. It was further argued that burden to prove the violation of Section 25-F lays on the workman and merely giving of the names would not by itself be sufficient to prove the fact that the persons named by the petitioner were engaged with him or after his retrenchment. Learned Labour Court, therefore, rightly concluded that the petitioner could not prove that any person was engaged after his retrenchment. Moreover such a ground would not be available to the petitioner because he himself abandoned the service and did not attend his duties after 24.08.1990. There was thus no question of violation of Sections 25-F & 25-G of the Act. It was, therefore, prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed. 9. Moreover such a ground would not be available to the petitioner because he himself abandoned the service and did not attend his duties after 24.08.1990. There was thus no question of violation of Sections 25-F & 25-G of the Act. It was, therefore, prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. In the present case, working of the petitioner-workman was confined to limited period from 01.04.1990 to 24.08.1990 which was less than even four months. Learned Labour Court on appreciation of evidence held that the petitioner could not prove that the persons named by him were working after his retrenchment. Learned Labour Court also held that it is no the case where the petitioner-workman was retrenched from the service on 24.08.1990. Even without going into merits of the case, the claim of petitioner was liable to be rejected because even though he was allegedly retrenched from service on 24.08.1990 but at his instance reference to learned Labour Court was made on 10.03.1999 which was enormously delayed by nine years. Such an inordinate delay by itself was sufficient ground for refusing any relief to the workman, more particularly when he was merely appointed by verbal order on daily wages basis and not by any regular mode. His total working was for less than even four months. 10. In my view the award passed by the learned Labour Court does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record. I, therefore, find no merit in this writ petition. 11. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.