Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 530 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Laxmi Lal

2011-03-10

GOVIND MATHUR

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The respondent-workman was employed with the petitioner employer as Beldar on 05.02.1992 on compassionate grounds. His employment was ceased by the employer on 09.12.1992 as he remained absent from duties from 19.10.1992. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute, that was referred for its adjudication to the Labour Court, Udaipur by the appropriate Government under a notification dated 09.09.1999. The labour court, while treating cessation of employment in violation of Principles of Natural Justice as well as Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Work charge Rules, 1964, set aside the order of discontinuation from service and directed the employer to reinstate the respondent-workman with back-wages up to 50% of the total wages. Being aggrieved of the same, this petition for writ is preferred. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-employer that the labour court erred while directing the employer for reinstatement in service without examining the fact that the respondent workman was not in continuous employment as defined under Section 25 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. I do not find any merit in the argument advanced. The factum of continuous service is required to be examined in the event of retrenchment of a workman and not in the cases relating to automatic cessation of service for remaining absent from duties. The automatic cessation of service is not permissible without affording an opportunity of hearing to the workman concerned and without extending a reasonable opportunity for defence. In the present case, admittedly, the respondent - workman is a work charge employee and his services could not have been discontinued by way of a stigma without adhering the provisions of Rule 29 of the Rules of 1964. As such, I do not find any wrong with the order impugned that may warrant interference of this court while exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The petition for writ is accordingly dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******