Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 70 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. The Judge, Labour Court

2008-01-10

PREM SHANKER ASOPA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of parties, this case is being heard finally and is being disposed of at admission stage. 2. By this writ petition, the State of Rajasthan has challenged the Award dated 6.2.2002 whereby termination of Babu Lal Meena, original respondent workman, (since deceased) now represented by legal representatives who are arrayed as respondents No. 2/1 to 2/3, from service from 14.12.1980 has been declared Illegal and invalid and the original respondent workman has been ordered to be reinstated with continuity In service without back wages and other consequential benefits. During the pendency of the writ petition the original respondent workman died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondents No. R/1 to R/3. 3. Now the only relief for which contest can be made Is of deemed reinstatement from 6.2.2002 (i.e. the date of Award) with continuity of service and other consequential benefits excluding back wages. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Labour Court has wrongly held that the paper publication for taking wages in lieu of notice is not the sufficient compliance of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act of 1947'), therefore, the Award is liable to be set aside. 5. Submission of counsel for the original respondent- workman is that the services of the workmen were terminated on 14.12.1988 whereas the paper publication was made on 20.12.88 and 21.12.88 in two news papers therefore, the same cannot be taken to be compliance of provisions of the Act of 1947 for payment of notice pay which is a condition precedent for retrenchment. 6. I have gone through record of the writ petition and further considered rival submissions of counsel for the parties. 7. I am of the considered view that offer of notice pay and retrenchment compensation cannot be made after termination. It should have been made simultaneously or before the date of termination i.e. 14.12.1988 and subsequent paper publication on 20.12.1988 and 21.12.1988 is of no use as the same is condition precedent for termination. 8. The writ petition has no force and the same is dismissed. 9. Considering the fact of death of the original respondent workman during pendency of the writ petition, his reinstatement can not be ordered. 8. The writ petition has no force and the same is dismissed. 9. Considering the fact of death of the original respondent workman during pendency of the writ petition, his reinstatement can not be ordered. However, he shalt be deemed to be reinstated and his back wages from the date of Award till date shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased original respondent workman and they are also entitled to other consequential benefits arising out of the Award as well as death of the original respondent workman.Writ petition dismissed. *******