Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2046 (RAJ)

Officer Incharge Agricultural Research Center, Sumerpur Pali v. Industrial Tribunal And Labour Court, Jodhpur

2013-11-20

GOVIND MATHUR

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - In pursuant to the order dated 11.11.2013 passed by a co-ordinate Bench, this matter came up for its adjudication in the spirit of Lok Adalat. 2. This petition for writ is preferred to challenge the award dated 23.9.2000 passed by learned Labour Court. Jodhpur in Labour Case No. 1 70/1995. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the appropriate Government by a notification dated 8.8.1995 referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court, Jodhpur in the terms that "Whether the termination of workman Mr. Asu Singh S/o Mr. Narpat Singh (represented by Mr. Bhagirath Chandaura, Mill Gate. Pali) by his employer-Officer Incharge, Agricultural Research Centre, Sumerpur, Pali with effect from 1.6.1993 is just and valid ? If not, then for what relief the workman is entitled V. 4. The Labour Court after considering the entire material available on record arrived at the conclusion that the 'termination of the workman from service amounts to retrenchment as defined under section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947'), that was effected without adhering the mandatory conditions precedent to do so. Accordingly, the retrenchment was declared illegal and the workman was declared entitled for reinstatement in service with 25% of the back-wages accrued. 5. It is pointed out by learned Counsel for the parties that in pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court, the workman has already been reinstated in service in the year 2004 and he is presently continuing as Class-IV employee in the petitioner-establishment. 6. In view of the factual background noticed above, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition for writ by making the reinstatement for the workman absolute with all continuity in service, but he shall not be entitled for any back wages. 7. Accordingly, this petition for writ is disposed of by modifying the award impugned in the terms that the workman shall be entitled for reinstatement in service with all continuity thereon, but not for any back-wages.Petition Disposed Of. *******