Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 419 (RAJ)

Asstt. Engineer, P. W. D v. Manohar Lal

2007-02-26

GOVIND MATHUR

body2007
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.—By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the award dt. 22.06.2001 passed by the Labour Court Jodhpur in Industrial Dispute Case No. 97/97 (Sh. Manohar Lal vs. Asstt. Engineer PWD Sub-Division-Sojat City). 2. The appropriate Government under its notification dt. 01.03.1997 referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court, Jodhpur in the terms as to whether termination of workman Sh. Manohar Lal S/o Sh. Devdas by his employer Assistant Engineer, PWD, Sub-Division Sojat and Executive Engineer, PWD, Sojat City w.e.f. the month of August 1990 is valid and proper? If not then for what relief the workman is entitled? 3. By the award impugned while answering the reference Labour Court held that the termination of the workman Sh. Manohar Lal by the employer amounts retrenchment as defined under Sec. 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that was effected without adhering mandatory conditions precedent to do so as such the same was declared illegal. Learned Labour Court ordered for reinstatement of the workman in service with back-wages in a tune of 25%. 4. Being aggrieved by the same this petition for writ is preferred by the employer on the count that the Labour Court failed to appreciate that the workman was not in continuous service as defined under Sec. 25F of the Act of 1947 and also that the Labour Court failed to appreciate that as a matter of fact the workman abandoned the employment. 5. I have examined the award impugned and also perused the record annexed with the writ petition. The contention of the petitioner-employer that the Labour Court failed to appreciate that the workman was not in continuous service is of no force as the Labour Court after considering the muster-roll available on record reached at a specific conclusion that the workman remained in service of the respondents for a period of more than one year. The contention of the petitioner-employer that the Labour Court failed to appreciate that the workman was not in continuous service is of no force as the Labour Court after considering the muster-roll available on record reached at a specific conclusion that the workman remained in service of the respondents for a period of more than one year. The relevant portion of the findings given by the Labour Court reads as follows: mijksä lk{; ds vk/kkj ij ;fn izkFkhZ ds dk;Zfnolksa dh x.kuk dh tk, rks izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku jgk gS fd mlus 01-04-1987 ls vxLr 90 rd foi{kh ds v/khu crkSj nSfud osruHkksxh Jfed ds :i esa fujUrj dk;Z fd;k rFkk vxLr 1990 esa mldh lsok,¡ ekSf[kd vknsÓk ls lekIr dj nh tc fd foi{kh ds xokg dk ;g dFku jgk gS fd izkFkhZ us lkstr o ekjokM+ taDÓku nksuks mi[k.Mksa esa fd;s x;s dk;Zfnolksa esa 240 fnu yxkrkj dk;Z ugh fd;k izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fnukad 15-12-1999 dks ,d izkFkZuk i= isÓk dj 01-04-1987 ls 31-08-1990 rd ds eLVjjksy vizkFkhZ ls ryc djokus gsrq isÓk fd;k ftldh ikyuk esa foi{kh }kjk tks ^^,** jksy o eLVjjksy dh QksVks izfr;k¡ izLrqr dh xbZ mudk eSaus voyksdu fd;kA mä ^^,** jksy o eLVjjksy ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ us vizsy ls ebZ 1987 rd vFkkZr~ 01-04-1987 ls 31-05-1987] 01-06-1987 ls 31-07-1987] 01-08- 1987 ls 30 -09-1987] 01-10-1987 ls 31-10-1987 o 01-11-1987 ls 31-12-87] 01-01-1988 ls 31-01-1988 esa fujUrj dk;Z fd;k] ;fn bu dk;Z fnolksa dh x.kuk izR;sd ekg ds 26 fnu ls dh tkos rks Hkh izkFkhZ ds dk;Zfnol 306 fnu gks tkrs gSaA blds vykok vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls o"kZ 1988 ds Qjojh ls ysdj fnlEcj 1988 rd ds eLVjjksy o , jksy izLrqr ugh fd;s gSa] tuojh 1989] vizsy 1989 ls tqykbZ 1989] flrEcj 1989 ls fnlEcj 1989 rd ds eLVjjksy o , jksy izLrqr ugh fd;s gSa] tuojh 1990] ebZ 1990 ls vxLr 1990 rd ds eLVjjksy Hkh izLrqr ugh fd;s gSaA foi{kh ds fo}ku izfrfu/kh dk ;g dFku jgk gS fd pwafd izkFkhZ us mä vof/k;ksa esa dk;Z ugh fd;k blfy;s mä vof/k;ksa ds eLVjjksy isÓk ugh fd;sA ;fn okLro esa izkFkhZ us mä vofèk esa dk;Z ugh fd;k Fkk rks Hkh foi{kh dk ;g nkf;Ro Fkk fd og mä vof/k;ksa ds eLVjjksy vFkok ^^,** jksy U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr dj ;g crk ldrk Fkk fd izkFkhZ us mä ekgksa esa dk;Z ugh fd;k ysfdu foi{kh dh vksj ls jsdMZ miyC/k gksrs gq, Hkh mä ekgksa ds eLVjjksy o ^^,** jksy izLrqr ugh djus ls foi{kh ds fo:¼ ;gh vo/kkj.kk yh tk;sxh fd izkFkhZ us mä ekgksa esa Hkh foi{kh ds v/khu dk;Z fd;k FkkA bl izdkj mijksä lk{; foospu ls ;g izekf.kr ekuk tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ us 01-04-1987 ls vxLr 1990 rd foi{kh ds v/khu fujUrj dk;Z fd;k rFkk lsok lekfIr ls iwoZ ds ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa yxkrkj 240 fnu dk;Z dj fy;k FkkA** 6. The contention that the petitioner abandoned the service is also having no merit as the Labour Court on basis of the available evidence gave a finding of fact that the workman did not abandon the service but he was terminated from the service. Such findings of facts need not be interfered by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India if not perverse. Learned counsel for the petitioner utterly failed to satisfy the Court that the findings given by the Labour Court are perverse, as such, no interference is warranted. 7. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed.